A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States is unconstitutional.
The decision from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirms an earlier nationwide injunction issued by a lower court and marks the first time an appellate court has weighed in on the matter, bringing it closer to a potential Supreme Court hearing.
The case and its background
Trump’s executive order sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. This sparked at least nine lawsuits nationwide, with plaintiffs including a coalition of states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—who argued that the order contravenes the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Previously, US District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle was the first to block the order, criticizing the administration for what he described as an attempt to undermine the Constitution for political purposes.
The court’s reasoning
The three-judge panel delivered a 2-1 majority opinion, agreeing with the district court’s interpretation. “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.
The panel retained the nationwide injunction against the order, even though the Supreme Court has generally restricted lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. The majority found an exception in this case, since enforcing birthright citizenship only in some states would cause significant legal confusion and undermine uniformity.
Dissent and legal arguments
Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, dissented. He argued that the coalition of states lacked legal standing to sue over the order and expressed skepticism about broad injunctions, warning against their overuse. However, Bumatay did not address the underlying constitutional question regarding birthright citizenship itself.
The Justice Department defends Trump’s action by asserting that the amendment’s phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” narrows the scope of birthright citizenship. In contrast, the plaintiff states—and significant historical precedent—argue that the plain language of the 14th Amendment does not allow for the broad exclusions invoked by the Trump order.
Constitutional and historical context
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...” The states challenging Trump’s order point to an 1898 Supreme Court decision which established that children born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, are entitled to citizenship—a standard that has been viewed as central to immigration law for more than a century.
What happens next
This appellate ruling maintains the block on Trump’s proposed policy nationwide. With the 9th Circuit’s decision, the issue is positioned to head toward the Supreme Court, particularly since the Court has recently limited the instances when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
At present, however, the appellate court has determined that denying birthright citizenship based on parental immigration status remains unconstitutional, preserving the status quo established under the 14th Amendment.
