A federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order blocking former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, describing the policy as “blatantly unconstitutional,” CNN reported. Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, made the ruling in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states. The restraining order, which will remain in effect for 14 days, allows time for further legal arguments.

The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state of Washington, highlighted the immediate harm caused by the order, noting that babies born during the legal proceedings face uncertainty about their citizenship status. He added that the policy could have “long-term substantial negative impacts” on children who might be denied citizenship, as well as financial and logistical burdens on state programs if federal benefits are denied to those affected.

Judge Coughenour expressed shock that the executive order was issued, calling the legal reasoning behind it indefensible. “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” he said, criticizing the administration’s legal advisers for supporting the policy. He remarked that it “boggled” his mind that any lawyer would argue the order’s constitutionality.

The Trump administration maintains that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause allows the president to exclude children of undocumented immigrants and even some whose parents are lawfully present but lack permanent legal status. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate urged the court to avoid a “snap judgment” and allow more time for briefing on the policy, acknowledging the court’s concerns but cautioning against a rushed decision.

At the White House, Trump signaled his intention to challenge the ruling, while additional lawsuits against the executive order have been filed by Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights groups, and individuals. In Maryland, during a separate hearing, Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg admitted that federal agencies had not yet begun implementing the policy, as the order was issued just three days earlier. A hearing in that case is set for February 5 to determine whether to temporarily block the policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights and immigration organizations have filed another legal challenge in New Hampshire. A federal judge there is scheduled to hear arguments on February 10 regarding a request for a preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, Polozola argued that the administration’s filings suggest that the harm caused by the policy “appears to be the purpose” of the order, further underscoring its potential impact on children and state resources.