A federal appeals court based in San Francisco has declared former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional. The decision, issued Wednesday by a panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, supports an earlier ruling by a Seattle federal judge that blocked the order from taking effect across the United States.
This marks the first time an appellate court has weighed in on the controversial policy, setting the stage for a potential review by the Supreme Court.
The executive order in question would have denied citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents were either undocumented immigrants or individuals present in the country temporarily. The Ninth Circuit panel found this to be in violation of the Constitution.
“The lower court correctly interpreted the Constitution in rejecting the government’s attempt to restrict citizenship based on parental immigration status,” the majority opinion stated.
The decision keeps intact the nationwide block originally issued by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle. Judge Coughenour criticized the policy as a political move that overstepped constitutional limits. He was the first to halt enforcement of the order.
Neither the White House nor the Department of Justice provided an immediate response when asked for comment.
Although the Supreme Court has recently narrowed the scope for judges to issue sweeping nationwide orders, the Ninth Circuit ruled that this particular case qualifies for an exception. The judges noted that allowing different rules across states would create confusion and legal chaos.
Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both part of the majority, emphasized that a broad injunction was necessary to ensure the states involved received full legal relief. The case was brought by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, which argued that inconsistent application of birthright citizenship would cause significant disruption.
In dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay disagreed with the majority’s decision to allow the states to sue, stating they lacked the legal grounds to do so. He cautioned against using the term “complete relief” to justify broad legal orders that affect the entire nation. However, Bumatay did not express an opinion on whether the policy itself would withstand constitutional scrutiny.
At the heart of the legal battle is the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States who are subject to its laws. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that the phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” means not every child born on American soil is automatically a citizen.
The opposing states disagreed, citing both the plain wording of the Constitution and a 19th-century Supreme Court case that confirmed citizenship for a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.
Trump’s executive order contended that children born in the country under certain conditions, such as when one or both parents are not permanent residents or citizens, should not be granted citizenship. Legal challenges to the policy have emerged in courts across the country, with at least nine separate lawsuits filed to date.
This ruling from the Ninth Circuit further solidifies the legal consensus that any move to eliminate birthright citizenship through executive action is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny.
