Skip to content
President Donald Trump, who seeks to end citizenship in the field of birth, will face its next legal obstacle this week when three separate federal judges carry hearings to consider whether they should prevent this.
Before listening sessions, lawyers at the Ministry of Justice argued in legal deposits that the newly born citizenship creates a “harmful incentive for illegal immigration” with the claim that Trump’s executive order is trying to solve “previous ribs” from the fourteenth amendment.
“The text, history, and precedent support for what is forced by sound instinct: the constitution does not harbor a sudden condition that gives American citizenship, through matters, those who circumvent the laws of federal immigration (or explicitly defied it)” Brett Shout wrote in a modern file.
The American boycott judge John Kognor prevented the order last month – describing it as “starkly unconstitutional” – with a temporary restriction that expires this week.
Coughenour set a hearing on Thursday morning to consider whether a preliminary court order will order the Trump administration to stop implementing the matter.
The judges also specified in two additional issues, which unite the sessions of specific sessions this week, including a session on Wednesday in the Maryland case, which was submitted by five undocumented women and a session on Friday in a lawsuit filed by 18 state lawyers.
Listening sessions are likely to provide the first opportunity for the Ministry of Justice’s lawyer to determine the defense of Trump’s executive order on the first day that sought to eliminate citizenship consuming for immigrant children who are not documented or immigrants whose presence in the United States is legally but temporary.
President Donald Trump speaks to the press after signing an executive order at the White House Oval Office in Washington, January 31, 2025.
Mandel Nagan/AFP via Getty Images
According to the court’s recent report, Trump’s executive order explained the phrase “taking into account the jurisdiction” within the condition of citizenship in the fourteenth amendment, the phrase is that it means that immigrants in the country illegally or temporarily will not be entitled to obtain recovered citizenship.
The lawsuit said: “He created a misunderstanding of the item of citizenship before an incentive that is harmful to illegal immigration that negatively affected the sovereignty of this country, national security and economic stability.” “But the generation that enacted the fourteenth amendment did not design the United States to such a reality.”
The lawyers of the Ministry of Justice tried to defend the legality of the matter by comparing immigrants who are not documented by foreign diplomats, who are not entitled to obtain citizenship in the field of birth.
The file said: “Just as this does not carry diplomats or operators, it does not likely to the foreigners who are temporarily accepted or individuals here illegally,” the file said.
While the Supreme Court established the maternity of birth in the case of the United States of America for the year 1898 against Wong Kim Arac, the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice claim that the case is only related to the parents of parents who have a “home and permanent residence” in the United States, which indicates that the executive matter does not run from Long legal precedents.
The lawsuit said: “If the United States does not agree to the presence of someone permanently, this does not agree to make the citizens of the children of that person.”
Trump’s executive order obtained a lukewarm reception last month when Judge Couganour, during the issuance of the temporary restriction order, reprimanded the lawyer of the Ministry of Justice, who suggested that Trump’s executive order was constitutional.
“I was on the bench for more than four decades,” said Judge Kognor. “I can’t remember another case where the question is clear as it is here.”
Trump, who undertakes the resumption of the temporary restriction order, criticized Judge Kognor- who was nominated for the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981- as a party.
“It is clear that we will resume this. They put it in front of a specific judge – in Seattle, I think, right? There are no surprises with this judge,” Trump said of the Oval Office.