The app for independent voices

BREAKING: A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, with reporters at the hearing in Seattle noting that the judge strongly criticized the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and harshly questioned the lawyers defending it.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an 83-year-old Reagan appointee, issued a temporary restraining order in the case brought by four states and led by Washington after a short hearing, blocking the order for the next two weeks while litigation — in his court and elsewhere — proceeds.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” according to a report from The Seattle Times’s David Gutman.

Coughenour didn’t stop there, telling the lawyers, “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?“

A TRO is not generally appealable. Instead, its time limitations mean that the court will likely either schedule a hearing on a preliminary injunction request — an order that could be appealed — so that a decision on that could be made in that timeline or will extend the TRO to fit an agreed-upon timeline for proceeding.

[UPDATE, 4:30 p.m. ET: Coughenour set a briefing schedule and hearing date for the preliminary injunction request, with the hearing two weeks from now, on February 6.]

Brett Shumate, a former Jones Day partner who joined the Trump administration and was representing the government at Thursday’s hearing, took particularly sharp questioning from Coughenour, per Gutman’s report:

Coughenour: “In your opinion Is this executive order constitutional?”

Shumate: “[I]t absolutely is.”

Coughenour: “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

The multiple cases covered previously at Law Dork, including this one, will continue moving forward but, for now, Trump’s order is on hold.

Jan 23
at
7:36 PM

Log in or sign up

Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.