Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, upholding a nationwide block on its enforcement.

The decision from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms an earlier ruling by a district judge in Seattle, and marks a significant legal setback for efforts to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.

The executive order, issued during Trump’s presidency, sought to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or individuals in the country on temporary visas. The 9th Circuit panel agreed with the lower court’s assessment that the order contradicts the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“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,” wrote Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both Clinton appointees, in the majority opinion.

The ruling maintains the nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, who had sharply criticized the Trump administration’s attempt to “disregard constitutional guarantees for political purposes.” While the Supreme Court has recently narrowed the scope for nationwide injunctions, the appellate panel determined that this case qualified for an exception, given the widespread impact of the executive order.

The case was brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which argued that allowing birthright citizenship to vary by state would cause widespread legal and administrative chaos. The court agreed, finding that a uniform injunction was necessary to provide full relief.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented. He argued that the states lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and expressed concern about the growing use of universal injunctions. However, he did not offer an opinion on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.

At the heart of the legal debate is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees U.S. citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Justice Department has contended that this language excludes children born to those who are not legally permanent residents or U.S. citizens. The states countered that this interpretation ignores both the plain text of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which affirmed citizenship for a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

Trump’s executive order argued that a child born in the U.S. should not be granted citizenship if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits have been filed across the country challenging the order.

The White House and Justice Department have not yet responded to the ruling. The issue may ultimately land before the Supreme Court, potentially reviving a centuries-old debate over the scope of birthright citizenship in America.