9th Circuit Blocks Trump’s Citizenship Revocation Order \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction, reinforcing that children born on U.S. soil remain citizens regardless of parental immigration status. The case now moves closer to likely Supreme Court review.
Quick Looks
- 9th Circuit strikes down Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.
- Appeals court upholds earlier nationwide block by a Seattle judge.
- Order targeted children born to undocumented or temporary-status parents.
- Majority says Trump’s interpretation violates the 14th Amendment.
- Clinton-appointed judges supported the ruling; Trump appointee dissented.
- Dissent argued states lacked standing, not on constitutional grounds.
- Case likely heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Trump’s order has sparked at least nine legal challenges nationwide.
- 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship for those born in the U.S.
- States argued differing rules would create national legal chaos.
Deep Look
In a landmark legal rebuke, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms a lower court’s nationwide injunction, preventing the Trump administration from enforcing the controversial order.
This marks the first time a federal appellate court has weighed in on Trump’s executive effort to redefine the long-standing guarantee of birthright citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment. It’s a major setback for the administration’s immigration strategy and increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will soon take up the issue.
The case was initiated after Trump signed an order denying automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The executive order asserts that if a child’s mother lacks legal immigration status — or is in the country on a temporary visa — and the father is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident, the child should not be granted citizenship.
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause explicitly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that “subject to the jurisdiction” doesn’t apply to children of undocumented or temporary-status parents, asserting the language was never intended to confer birthright citizenship in such cases.
But the courts have now twice disagreed. The first to block the order was U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle, who ruled that the Trump administration’s interpretation was politically motivated and inconsistent with the Constitution. “The executive cannot unilaterally rewrite constitutional guarantees,” Coughenour wrote.
The 9th Circuit panel upheld Coughenour’s ruling, writing: “The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.”
Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould — both appointed by President Bill Clinton — authored the majority opinion. Their ruling reinforces the court’s view that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right not subject to the president’s policy preferences.
Though the Supreme Court has recently limited lower court authority to issue nationwide injunctions, the 9th Circuit found that this case met the exceptions identified by the high court. The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of states including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, argued that inconsistent enforcement of citizenship laws would cause widespread legal confusion and constitutional inequality.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” the majority opinion stated.
The lone dissent came from Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, who did not weigh in on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. Instead, he argued that the states did not have standing to bring the case and criticized the use of a nationwide injunction. “We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism,” Bumatay wrote, warning against using “complete relief” as a backdoor to blanket injunctions.
Still, Bumatay’s dissent stopped short of endorsing the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Constitution, leaving the fundamental legal question unchallenged within his dissent.
This case revives one of the most historically significant citizenship rulings in U.S. history: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents — who were barred from naturalization at the time — was nonetheless a U.S. citizen. That precedent firmly established birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee, regardless of a parent’s immigration status.
The Trump administration, however, argues that the constitutional interpretation of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment allows for more discretion than Wong Kim Ark recognized — an argument that has been rejected repeatedly in lower courts but may soon receive its first Supreme Court test in more than a century.
As of now, at least nine lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive order have been filed across the United States. Legal scholars view the issue as one of the most significant constitutional debates of Trump’s second term, potentially reshaping the foundational understanding of U.S. citizenship.
The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the ruling. However, given Trump’s ongoing focus on immigration and border control in his current term, observers expect an aggressive appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.
Should the high court agree to hear the case, the future of birthright citizenship — a cornerstone of American constitutional law — may rest in the hands of a 6-3 conservative majority. The stakes are profound: a reversal of Wong Kim Ark would not only impact the children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants, but could open the door to further erosion of long-standing citizenship protections.
For now, the 9th Circuit’s ruling sends a clear signal: the Constitution, not presidential decree, defines who is a citizen of the United States.
9th Circuit Blocks 9th Circuit Blocks
You must Register or Login to post a comment.