U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday decried what he described as the administration’s treatment of the Constitution and said Trump was trying to change it with an executive order.

The latest proceeding came just a day after a Maryland federal judge����in a separate but similar case involving immigrants’ rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-born children could be affected.

“Our argument is simple and true — birthright citizenship is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in released by his office. “The president may not care about the Constitution or the rule of law, but we do.”

Where do things stand on birthright citizenship?

The president’s executive order seeks to end the automatic grant of citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or who are here on a temporary, but lawful basis such as those on student or tourist visas.

For now, it’s on hold. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland followed that up with an injunction keeping it on hold long-term, until the merits of the case are resolved, barring a successful appeal by the Trump administration.

Following a hearing on Thursday, Coughenour — a Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the bench since 1980 — issued his own injunction. Trump is simply trying to amend the 14th Amendment — which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction — for political reasons, the judge said.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said. “In this courtroom and under my watch the rule of law is a bright beacon, which I intend to follow.”

Coughenour’s injunction comes two weeks after he called Trump’s order����and issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking its implementation.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal the injunctions.

Washington’s attorney general addresses Trump’s birthright citizenship order

The attorney general’s office expressed concerns about Trump’s actions and their impact on the babies and children in the state of Washington.��

“If allowed to stand, the president’s order would cause thousands of newborns and children born in Washington each year to lose their ability to fully and fairly participate in American society as citizens, despite the Constitution’s guarantee of their citizenship,” the news release states.��

In addition, the state attorney general said the president acted outside of what he is able to do legally and his moves would not only affect children in the state, but thousands of people overall.

“President Trump acted far outside the bounds of his legal authority in issuing his executive order. Allowing federal agencies to implement and enforce it would harm thousands of Washingtonians and the state at large,” the statement reads. “Washington administers numerous programs to support the health and welfare of its residents. Many of those programs are supported by federal funding, which would be reduced as a result of the executive order.”

What about the other cases challenging the president’s order?

In total, 22 states, as well as other organizations,��.

The matter before the Seattle judge involves four states: Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington. It has been consolidated with a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Eighteen states, led by Iowa, filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief supporting the Trump administration’s position in the case.

Another hearing is set for Friday in a Massachusetts court. That case involves a different group of 18 states challenging the order, including New Jersey, which is the lead plaintiff. Yet another challenge, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, goes before a federal judge in New Hampshire on Monday.

What’s at issue here?

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which held that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The plaintiffs argue the amendment, which holds that “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,” are indisputably citizens.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

“The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws,” the government argued in reply to the Maryland plaintiffs’ suit.

Attorneys for the states have argued that it does — and that has been recognized since the amendment’s adoption, notably in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

In 1924, Congress passed a separate law granting birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Contributing: The Associated Press; Steve Coogan, MyNorthwest

Lieutenant John O’Neil, a 20-year veteran of the SPD, claims the city and department leadership systematically undermined his career, punished him for reporting misconduct and allowed subordinates to weaponize internal complaint processes against him. He specifically criticizes the alleged conduct of other officers who have pursued their own legal complaints against the city.

The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, seeks damages for alleged violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, the “Silence No More Act” and the Seattle Municipal Code.

More from Jason Rantz: Teacher gives students script to send lawmakers to oppose in-person voting bill

Allegations of retaliation and career sabotage in Seattle lawsuit

According to the complaint, O’Neil was promoted to sergeant in 2019 after an impeccable record. But he says his troubles began in 2021 when he was assigned to supervise SPD’s K-9 Unit, a position meant to address deficiencies flagged by the Office of Inspector General. His efforts to implement reforms were met with fierce resistance, culminating in what he describes as a “coordinated effort” to force him out.

Tensions escalated when O’Neil removed a K-9 trainer for performance issues. Shortly after, the officer’s alleged romantic partner, Officer Kame Spencer, accused O’Neil of racism, alleging he replaced photos of previous (white) K-9 handlers in his office with images of his African-American family. He said SPD command swiftly reassigned O’Neil to an administrative role — a punishment, he argues, for enforcing discipline.

Over the next two years, O’Neil says he was subjected to multiple retaliatory complaints, all of which were eventually dismissed as baseless. The lawsuit claims his subordinates, including Spencer and Officers Valerie Carson and Jean Gulpan, engaged in insubordination and misconduct, yet faced little to no disciplinary action. Instead, O’Neil was repeatedly reassigned to less desirable positions, denied opportunities for advancement, and ultimately pushed to a night-shift post under a supervisor with a personal connection to one of his accusers.

More from Jason Rantz: ICE Seattle just nabbed dangerous criminals, but liberal Seattle media remains mostly mum

Weaponizing the complaint process

The lawsuit describes a workplace culture where certain officers exploited SPD’s internal complaint mechanisms to attack O’Neil’s character.

After rejecting what he called unwanted advances from Officer Gulpan, O’Neil says she became openly insubordinate and later filed a retaliatory sexual harassment complaint. That, too, was dismissed—but not before damaging his reputation within the department, the lawsuit contends.

By 2024, O’Neil had been cleared of all wrongdoing in three separate investigations. Yet, according to the lawsuit, SPD leadership refused to reinstate him to meaningful roles. When he finally secured a transfer to the Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Unit, female officers there allegedly lodged new complaints over unspecified incidents from 13 years before — effectively blocking his reassignment.

A recent independent review by MFR Associates, an outside firm hired by the city, appears to support O’Neil’s claims, according to the lawsuit. The report highlighted a pattern of officers misusing SPD’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Office of Police Accountability complaint processes, specifically targeting O’Neil.

More from Jason Rantz:��Democrats pushing cow flatulence tax over climate change is peak absurdity

Another black eye for the city of Seattle with lawsuit

The lawsuit marks yet another black eye for the city of Seattle, already struggling with staffing crises. If O’Neil’s claims hold up in court, they could force scrutiny over how the department handles internal complaints and whether Seattle’s progressive leadership selectively enforces policies based on political convenience. It’s also not the only lawsuit the city is facing.

Four female Seattle police officers—Valerie Carson, Kame Spencer, Jean Gulpan, and Lauren Truscott—have a lawsuit against the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department, alleging gender-based discrimination and retaliation. The officers claim they faced a hostile work environment, were denied promotions, and experienced retaliation after reporting misconduct.

But those four female officers are named in O’Neil’s lawsuit as being responsible for portions of the hostile environment he says he faced.

With a police department already in turmoil, this lawsuit could expose deeper systemic failures in how Seattle treats its officers. It also shows a staggering amount of drama under Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s leadership. As for O’Neil, the fight is no longer just about his career — it is about restoring fairness to a broken system.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the��podcast here. Follow Jason on��������and��.

Saying “Winter 2024-25 is finally here,” the resort said in that its base depth doubled over the weekend, providing enough snow to make the announcement about opening and beginning the season at Summit West.

The operations will be limited to start, however. Summit added that Wildside won’t be open, but it will open soon.

Summit West is scheduled to run from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. the rest of this week and lift tickets are available starting Wednesday. According to the resort , the hours will shift from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Sunday, Dec. 23 and include two days of 9 a.m.-9:30 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 27 and Saturday, Dec. 28.

The planned lifts include Pacific Crest, Little Thunder, Julies and Dodge Ridge, the resort said. The new Wildside chairlift has been installed, but is not open yet. The resort said it is expected to open soon.

“The new Wildside Quad alignment will transform the experience in this area of Summit West, providing more of the fall-line descents advanced skiers and riders love, with less traversing,” the resort . “Plus, it’s easier to access whether you’re coming from the parking lot or another lift and is an important connector to Summit Central/Mountaineers.”

Previous coverage: Snowy conditions in the Cascades brings ski season, difficult driving

It should be noted that opening day is reserved for Summit at Snoqualmie and Ikon passholders.

Visitors also need to consider a new parking policy is in effect. Skiers and snowboarders will need a valid permit to park in lots The Summit operates.

Those permits are free for Summit season passholders and Flex Ticket Pack buyers. Permits are $5 for Ikon passholders and day ticket buyers. on The Summit website to get more information on the new policy.

Contributing:

Steve Coogan is the lead editor of MyNorthwest. You can read more of his stories here. Follow Steve on , or email him here.

At 7:45 a.m., a call came in reporting the suspicious backpack. Police evacuated the Seattle Police Department (SPD) East Precinct and apartments and businesses in a two-block radius in the area.

According to a Seattle Fire Department spokesperson, members of the SPD Bomb Squad were sent to inspect the backpack first. After they determined there were no explosives, a hazardous materials team investigated for chemicals or other dangerous substances.

They did find a white powdery substance in that backpack and it turned out to be nothing hazardous. The team on the scene was working to determine what the white powder was.

No chemicals or no explosives were found. Officials gave the “all clear” signal between 9:40 and 9:45 a.m.

“With something like this, it’s a precaution,” SPD Detective Brian Pritchard said. “In this day and age you never know, so we want to do is make sure everyone is safe.”

SPD found a white powdery substance inside a pack left outside the East precinct – not hazardous and no explosives …

— Luke Duecy (@����XվLukeD)

The SFD late Thursday morning that crews conducted multiple tests to determine the area is safe.

“We are turning the scene over to Seattle Police for them to reopen the area after our crews return to service,” the department’s online statement published just after 9:40 a.m. reads.

There were no reported injuries.

Streets around the area were also closed to traffic during the hours where the SFD was on the scene.

No suspect has been taken into custody. However, the SPD said to the department is looking for a man who may have left the backpack at the scene.

Like something out of science fiction – hazmat crews with

— Luke Duecy (@����XվLukeD)

Many neighborhood residents told ����Xվ NewsRadio they were initially shocked by the sirens and large response. However, some said they’re not surprised the incident involved the East Precinct. “If anything, that makes sense,” Megan, a local resident, said. “That sort of makes sense, if you’re going to target a precinct I could see that happening here in this precinct.”

The SPD East Precinct was the target of the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) in 2020 amid protests that were, at times, violent over the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis. The SPD vacated and boarded up the precinct only to return days later and reclaim their building.

Contributing:

Luke Duecy is a reporter, editor and anchor at ����Xվ Newsradio. You can read more of Luke’s stories here. Follow Luke on , or email him here.