State of Washington v. Trump (2025)

Last updated
State of Washington et al v. Trump et al
Washington-western.png
CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington
ArguedFebruary 6, 2025 (Preliminary Injunction)
DecidedJanuary 23, 2025 (Temporary restraining order granted for 14 days)
Court membership
Judge sittingJohn C. Coughenour

State of Washington v. Trump is a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit is challenging the executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" for violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [1] [2]

Lawsuit history

On January 21, 2025, the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon sued Donald Trump claiming that the executive order which Donald Trump signed the day before and ends birthright citizenship in the United States, violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [1] [2] [3]

Two days after the lawsuit was filed on January 23, 2025, Senior Judge John C. Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order against the executive order calling it "blatantly unconstitutional". The temporary restraining order expires 14 days after it was granted. [4] [5]

A hearing for a preliminary injunction to block the executive order is scheduled for February 6, 2025. [6] [7]

Trump has said that he will appeal the ruling. [8]

Related Research Articles

United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because at least one of their parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter J. Messitte</span> American judge (1941–2025)

Peter Jo Messitte was an American lawyer and jurist who served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from October 1993 until his death in January 2025.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derrick Watson</span> American judge (born 1966)

Derrick Kahala Watson is an American lawyer who serves as the chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable employment authorization document and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress.

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>Stone v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017

Stone v. Trump (1:17-cv-02459-MJG) was a lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleged that President Donald Trump's ban on transgender personnel joining the U.S. military violated their equal protection and due process rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members. In addition to President Trump, the suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)</span>

The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.

<i>Doe v. Trump</i> (2017) Lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019

Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. On January 4, 2019, the court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.

<i>English v. Trump</i>

Leandra English v. Donald Trump, et al., No. 1:17-cv-02534, was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Leandra English, alleged that the defendants, Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney, violated 12 U.S.C. § 5491(b)(5)(B), a component of the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010, when President Trump appointed Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl J. Nichols</span> American judge (born 1970)

Carl John Nichols is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<i>TikTok v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between TikTok and Donald Trump

TikTok v. Trump was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia filed in September 2020 by TikTok as a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order of August 6, 2020. The order prohibited the usage of TikTok in five stages, the first being the prohibition of downloading the application. On September 27, 2020, a preliminary injunction was issued by Judge Carl J. Nichols blocking enforcement of that executive order. The lawsuit, by then captioned TikTok v. Biden, was dismissed in July 2021, following the Biden Administration's rescission of the executive order.

United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. Opponents stated that the Act went against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which, prior to its overturn in 2022, banned states from prohibiting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Executive Order 14160, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" was signed by Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States, on January 20, 2025. The executive order aims to challenge the previously prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to end birthright citizenship in the United States for children of unauthorized immigrants as well as immigrants legally but temporarily present in the U.S., such as those on student, work, or tourist visas.

The immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration encompasses the established immigration policies implemented by Donald Trump during his second term as president of the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 "State of Washington v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00127". CourtListener.com. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  2. 1 2 "Washington state sues to block Trump's birthright citizenship order - Axios Seattle". axios.com. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  3. "Oregon AG sues Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship". kgw.com. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  4. "Judge blocks Trump's plan to end US birthright citizenship". BBC News. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  5. "Case 2:25-cv-00127-JCC Document 43 Filed 01/23/25 | Grant Doc granting TRO for Executive Order Jan 23, 2025" (PDF). 2025-01-23. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  6. "What to know about the legal battle over Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship | PBS News". pbs.org. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  7. "Case 2:25-cv-00127-JCC Document 44 Filed 01/23/25 | Court Order setting hearing for injunction Feb 6, 2025" (PDF). 2025-01-23. Retrieved 2025-01-25.
  8. "US judge temporarily blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship". reuters.com. Retrieved 2025-01-25.