Trump’s birthright citizenship Court rules order unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. This decision reinforces an earlier ruling by a federal judge in New Hampshire, who had also blocked Trump’s plan. The controversial order had aimed to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the country to undocumented immigrants. The appeals court’s decision marks a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration policies.
Court Rules Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Unconstitutional, Reinforcing 14th Amendment Protections
Washington, D.C.: In a major legal setback for former President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that his order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholds a lower court’s nationwide block on the controversial policy and reaffirms the protections offered under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling follows a previous decision by a federal judge in New Hampshire who had also struck down Trump’s executive order. Now, with this latest decision, the legal battle appears poised to return to the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.
At the heart of the issue is Trump’s attempt to deny U.S. The Trump administration had argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” as stated in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, excludes such children from automatic citizenship. However, the courts have disagreed.
We fully agree,” the majority opinion stated firmly.
The 2-1 ruling ensures that the nationwide injunction—first issued by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle—remains in place. Judge Coughenour had previously criticized the Trump administration for trying to undermine constitutional principles for political gain. His decision was based not only on legal precedent but also on what he described as a troubling overreach by the executive branch.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” they wrote.
While the Supreme Court has recently narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, the 9th Circuit ruled that this case qualifies as an exception. According to the court, if birthright citizenship laws differed across state lines, it would create chaos and legal uncertainty, especially for state services and record-keeping tied to citizenship status.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented. He argued that the states involved in the lawsuit did not have legal standing to sue and expressed concern about the use of sweeping legal remedies. the constitutionality of Trump’s policy itself.
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates have long upheld this language as a guarantee of birthright citizenship, regardless of parental immigration status.
The Justice Department, defending Trump’s policy, had argued that the clause has been misinterpreted for over a century and that children born to parents without full legal ties to the U.S. should not automatically become citizens. However, opponents point to a landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which found that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents—who were not U.S. citizens—was entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The states that challenged Trump’s order argue that the executive action not only defies this precedent but also places an undue burden on their institutions, from public schools to health services and legal systems. They insisted a nationwide injunction was essential to prevent a fractured citizenship policy that would be legal in one state and void in another.
Trump’s executive order stated that children born in the U.S. are not citizens if their mother is undocumented or in the U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. This interpretation has sparked widespread legal challenges—at least nine separate lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts across the country.
The White House and the Department of Justice have not yet responded publicly to the 9th Circuit’s ruling. As the issue now edges closer to a potential Supreme Court showdown, it continues to ignite passionate debate over immigration, constitutional interpretation, and the enduring promise of American citizenship.