A federal judge temporarily blocked the executive order of the US president, Donald Trump, who denies citizens to children of parents without legal documentation to remain in the country. What is known about this challenge to the presidential measure and what other challenges could face?
The executive order of President Donald Trump denies American citizenship to the children of parents living without the relevant documentation in the country confronted on Thursday the first of what will be many legal challenges. It didn't go well.
A lawyer from the Department of Justice had barely begun to submit his arguments in a Seattle Court when the judge of the United States District John C. Cugenour began to bomb him with questions, qualifying the executive order as “openly unconstitutional.” The magistrate proceeded to Block it temporarily Waiting for more allegations.
Next, some things that you should know about the decision and the demands that challenge Trump's order.
What is citizens by birth?
Citizenship by birth right assumes that someone born in a country is a citizen of that territory. In the United States, this principle is enshrined in the 14th amended to the Constitution, which states that “all persons born or nationalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.” It was ratified in 1868 to guarantee the citizenship of the ancient slaves after the civil war.
Detractors of unrestricted immigration have alleged that this is an incentive for people to enter or stay in the United States irregularly: they know that if they have children, these children will be citizens and later they could request that their parents become legal residents permanent.
In an effort to stop irregular immigration, Trump issued the executive order just after Assume the presidency for a second term on Monday January 20, 2025. The measure caused immediate legal resources throughout the country, with at least five demands filed by 22 states and several groups of defense of migrants. The one presented by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois was the first to be heard.
What follows for legal challenges?
Thursday's ruling was a temporary restriction order that prevents the Government from enforcing or implementing the Trump order at the national level for the next 14 days.
In the next two weeks, the parties will submit more reports on the legal foundations of the Executive Order. Cughenour set another view for February 6 in which he will listen to arguments for and against dictating a preliminary order, which would block the long -term executive order while the case advances.
Meanwhile, some of the other resources against the order have also started in court.
The next hearing will be that of the case presented in Maryland at home, a non -profit organization that supports minors who suffered abuse or ill -treatment in reception homes. It is scheduled for February 5 at the District Court in Greenbelt.
Another resource, headed by New Jersey on behalf of 18 states, the district of Columbia and San Francisco, and one presented in Massachusetts by the Brazilian workers center still do not have scheduled views.
In addition to discussing the constitutionality of the executive order, the states affirm that the measure would submit to all minors affected to deportation and make many of them stateless. He would deprive them of their rights and prevent them from participating in economic or civic life, according to the states.
Why did the judge blocked the order of Trump?
Cughenour did not explain his reasoning during Thursday's hearing, but his claim that the order is “openly unconstitutional”, as well as his direct interrogation to the lawyer of the Brett Shumate Department of Justice – and his lack of questions for the attached attorney general of Washington , Lane Polozola – suggested that I agreed with the arguments of the states.
The states argue that it is well established that the 14th amendment guarantees citizenship by birth and that the president has no authority to determine who should or should not receive it.
“I have more than four decades in court. I can't remember another case where the question raised was as clear as this, ”Coufenour told Shumate.
The Department of Justice later indicated in a statement that “will strongly defend” the president's executive order.
“We hope to present a complete argument before the American court and people, who are desperate to see that the laws of our nation are fulfilled,” he said.
Who is the judge?
Cughenour, 84, graduated in Law at the University of Iowa in 1966 and was appointed judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. He has been a federal judge for more than four decades and, although he is now semi -themed, he continues to listen to cases. He has a reputation for being a hard jurist, and sometimes Cascarrabias.
The newly elected Attorney General of Washington, Nick Brown – Federal Exfiscal in Seattle – said after the view that he was not surprised by the Cughenour's reaction to the “absurdity” of the executive order.
“I have been in front of Judge Cugenour and I have seen his frustration personally,” Brown said. “But I think the words he expressed and the seriousness he showed have confirmed what we have been saying. This is quite obvious. ”
Among the thousands of cases judged by Couchnour, which cover from criminal law to environmental, probably the most famous was that of the “millennium terrorist”, Ahmed Ressam. Ressam was arrested at its entrance in the United States in December 1999 with a trunk full of explosives and plans to attempt at Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve.
Cughenour discussed repeatedly with federal prosecutors during the resting of Ressam for the benefits he should receive for cooperating with justice after his conviction. On two occasions, the judge sentenced Ressam to 22 years, much less than what the Prosecutor's Office requested, and as many times the United States Court of Appeals of the United States revoked his decision.
Finally, Cughenour sentenced Ressam to 37 years in 2012. At that time he declared that the case of Ressam was the only one that occurred to him in which the Court of Appeals considered him too indulgent.