by the El Reportero’s staff
President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants has faced a significant legal setback. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked the order, siding with a lawsuit filed by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, which challenges its constitutionality. The lawsuit is one of five brought by 22 states following the executive action, and this ruling marks the first significant court decision on the matter.
Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order sought to invalidate birthright citizenship, which has been guaranteed by the 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The order argued that the 14th Amendment never intended to extend citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. The directive required federal agencies to deny citizenship documents to children of parents who are “unlawfully present” or hold temporary legal status in the U.S.
However, Judge Coughenour, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” expressing disbelief at its legal foundation. He said, “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one,” and criticized the lack of legal justification for the order.
The judge’s ruling halts the policy, which was scheduled to take effect in February. Legal experts argue that the president cannot unilaterally alter constitutional rights through executive orders. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also challenged the order, joining other critics who view it as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
In response to the ruling, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration would appeal the decision, reaffirming Trump’s commitment to pursuing a broader immigration policy overhaul. “This is just the beginning,” she stated, as Trump’s administration continues its push for stricter immigration controls.
The executive order is part of a wider set of immigration reforms promised by Trump, including measures such as reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy, ending “catch and release,” and accelerating the construction of a physical border wall. Trump also intends to declare a national emergency at the border, deploying armed forces and building barriers to prevent illegal immigration.
Transgender Policy Executive Order Faces Criticism and Legal Challenges
In addition to his immigration agenda, Trump signed another controversial executive order that targets transgender policies within the federal government. On Jan. 20, 2025, the president signed the Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government order, which redefines gender as strictly male or female based on biological sex. It also removes transgender-related policies from federal agencies.
The order mandates that federal documents, including passports and Social Security records, reflect individuals’ biological sex rather than self-identified gender. It also restricts federal funding for transgender medical services, including those for minors. These measures have provoked strong backlash from civil rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the ACLU.
Opponents argue that the order undermines the rights of transgender people and could foster widespread discrimination. Kelley Robinson, President of the HRC, described the order as “a direct attack on the rights and dignity of transgender people.” Maya Wiley, of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, added that it “further marginalizes already vulnerable communities.”
One of the key provisions of the order is its prohibition on transgender medical treatments for minors, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The Trump administration justifies this as a way to protect children from medical procedures that may have irreversible consequences. Public opinion polls show that a significant portion of Americans supports these measures, with 71% opposing transgender medical treatments for minors.
Supporters of the order, including detransitioned individuals and advocates of “biological sex” definitions, see it as a necessary step to safeguard women’s sports and protect minors from pressures to transition. Critics, however, warn that the order will marginalize transgender people, especially those who have already transitioned, and harm inclusivity in society.
Legal experts suggest that Trump’s executive order on transgender issues is also likely to face legal challenges. Similar to the birthright citizenship order, it may be delayed pending court rulings. The potential legal battles signal a broader struggle over federal policies concerning gender identity and civil rights.
A Controversial Presidency, Facing Legal Scrutiny
Both executive orders—on birthright citizenship and transgender issues—reflect the deep political divisions within American society on questions of immigration and transgender rights. While Trump continues to push forward with his agenda, his policies face intense legal scrutiny, and both are expected to be challenged in court.
Legal experts broadly agree that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally alter constitutional provisions like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, or redefine gender identity in federal law. As the lawsuits unfold, these executive actions are expected to remain at the center of national debates over constitutional interpretation, civil rights, and the future of U.S. immigration and gender policies.
Despite these hurdles, Trump’s administration has shown no signs of backing down. His legal team has vowed to appeal the temporary block on the birthright citizenship order, and his continued push for tougher immigration laws signals that the fight is far from over. The executive order on transgender rights also promises to ignite further legal battles, as courts will ultimately decide whether the president can redefine gender for federal purposes.
As the legal challenges play out, both policies remain controversial. Proponents view them as steps toward enforcing “traditional” values, while critics see them as overreaches that violate fundamental rights. What is clear, however, is that Trump’s presidency is marked by aggressive attempts to reshape American law through executive power, with significant legal and social consequences that will likely endure long after the end of his term.
