In a significant legal development, a federal judge has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to redefine birthright citizenship. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour following a contentious hearing, deemed the order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

The decision comes amidst a flurry of lawsuits from 22 states and various immigrant rights groups challenging the executive order. The first of these cases to receive a judicial hearing, brought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, resulted in a nationwide temporary restraining order.

During the hearing, Judge Coughenour questioned the Department of Justice’s defense of the order’s constitutionality, stating that the action “boggles the mind.” This sentiment was echoed by attorneys representing the opposing states, who argued that the order would have immediate and far-reaching impacts on healthcare and benefits systems across the country.

Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola criticized the government’s argument that children of undocumented immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, calling it “absurd.” He emphasized the urgent need for the restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to thousands of potential citizens.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice expressed its intent to vigorously defend the executive order, asserting that it aligns with their interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

The legal battle underscores a fundamental debate over birthright citizenship, a principle deeply rooted in U.S. law and upheld by numerous legal precedents, including the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Advocates argue that birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American identity and a crucial protection for children born on U.S. soil.

Critics of the executive order, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, have emphasized the personal and societal stakes, condemning the order as a threat to American families and their rights.

As the case unfolds, the implications of this legal challenge extend beyond the courtroom, touching on fundamental questions of national identity and constitutional interpretation. The outcome will likely shape future debates over immigration policy and the boundaries of presidential authority.

Stay tuned for updates as the legal battle over birthright citizenship continues to unfold in federal courts across the United States.