A federal appeals court has delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship, ruling that his executive order attempting to end the constitutional guarantee is itself unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 decision issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of judges upheld a lower court’s nationwide block on the Trump administration’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary-status migrants.
In a 2-1 decision issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of judges upheld a lower court’s nationwide block on the Trump administration’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary-status migrants.
“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,” the majority wrote.
The ruling is the latest in a series of legal defeats for Trump over the controversial policy. A federal judge in New Hampshire previously blocked the order as well, and the issue now appears headed swiftly toward a potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the center of the legal dispute is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s order sought to reinterpret the amendment by excluding children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” could be used to deny citizenship in such cases—a position rejected by both lower courts and now by the 9th Circuit.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—who argued that a patchwork of citizenship laws across states would be chaotic and unconstitutional.
The court sided with the states, upholding a nationwide injunction that blocks the Trump administration from enforcing the order anywhere in the country. “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” wrote Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both Clinton appointees.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, issued the lone dissent. He claimed the states lacked legal standing and warned that broad injunctions risk circumventing proper legal boundaries. However, Bumatay did not weigh in on whether Trump’s policy itself was constitutional.
The ruling comes despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. However, the 9th Circuit noted that this case fell within a recognized exception, allowing for nationwide relief due to the constitutional scope of the issue.
Trump’s order has been the subject of at least nine lawsuits nationwide. While the Supreme Court recently upheld the order in a separate class-action case with a 6-3 vote—marking a rare victory for Trump on the issue—this latest 9th Circuit ruling reopens the legal battleground.
At a prior press conference celebrating the earlier Supreme Court decision, Trump had declared:
“This was a big one. Amazing decision. This really brings back the Constitution.”
Despite the legal complexities, Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration over what he views as liberal judges in blue states being able to unilaterally block his national policies.
With growing legal division and states locked in constitutional clashes, the final word on birthright citizenship may once again rest with the Supreme Court—potentially reshaping the legal definition of citizenship in the United States for the first time in over a century.