A Seattle court delivered the initial legal setback to President Donald Trump’s executive order revoking birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

During Thursday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour swiftly challenged the Justice Department’s arguments, labeling the executive order as unconstitutionally clear, and issued a temporary injunction.

Here’s a summary of the ruling and subsequent legal actions.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship grants citizenship to individuals born within a nation’s borders. The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, establishes this principle: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.” This provision aimed to secure citizenship for former slaves post-Civil War.

Critics contend that this policy incentivizes illegal immigration, as parents can secure citizenship for their U.S.-born children, potentially facilitating their own future legalization.

Following his second inauguration, President Trump issued the executive order to curb illegal immigration. This prompted immediate legal challenges from 22 states and several immigrant rights organizations, resulting in at least five lawsuits. A case filed by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois was the first to reach the courtroom.

What’s next for the legal challenges?

The temporary restraining order halts enforcement of Trump’s order nationwide for two weeks. Both sides will submit further legal briefs, leading to a February 6th hearing on a preliminary injunction that would extend the block. Other legal challenges are also progressing.

A Maryland case brought by CASA, a nonprofit assisting abused and neglected foster children, has a February 5th hearing scheduled in Greenbelt’s U.S. District Court.

Lawsuits from New Jersey (on behalf of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco), and Massachusetts (from the Brazilian Worker Center), await scheduling.

The states argue the order subjects affected children to deportation, rendering them stateless and stripping them of basic rights and societal participation.

Why did the judge block Trump’s order?

While Judge Coughenour didn’t explicitly detail his reasoning during the hearing, his description of the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and his pointed questioning of the DOJ attorney, contrasting with his approach to the state’s attorney, implies his agreement with the states’ arguments.

The states maintain that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, a power the President cannot unilaterally revoke.

Judge Coughenour remarked to the DOJ attorney: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”

The Department of Justice declared its intention to vigorously defend the executive order, expressing its aim to present a full merits argument to the court and the public.

Who is the judge?

Judge Coughenour, 84, a jurist with over four decades of experience, was appointed by President Reagan in 1981. Despite holding senior status, he remains actively involved in cases and is known for his independent, and sometimes contentious, judicial style.

Washington’s Attorney General Nick Brown described the judge’s response to the order as unsurprising given its obvious flaws.

Judge Coughenour’s extensive caseload encompasses various legal areas. Notably, he presided over the “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam case, leading to repeated clashes with federal prosecutors over sentencing, and resulting appeals.

Judge Coughenour concluded the Ressam case in 2012, describing it as the only instance where the appeals court deemed his sentencing too lenient.

—Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.