A federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, upholding a nationwide block on the controversial executive order.
In a 2–1 decision issued Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle, who had previously halted the policy. The court found that Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
- Advertisement -
“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 the majority opinion, authored by Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both Clinton appointees.
Trump’s 2018 executive order sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents were undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The administration’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause—specifically the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—was that birthright citizenship should not apply to children whose parents lacked legal status.
The majority opinion rejected this view, citing the plain language of the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, including the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who were not citizens was nevertheless entitled to citizenship by birth.
The decision also keeps intact a nationwide injunction, which the Supreme Court has increasingly scrutinized in recent years. However, the 9th Circuit found that the injunction was justified in this case due to the sweeping nature of the policy and the logistical challenges it posed to state governments.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” the majority wrote, responding to arguments from plaintiff states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—that allowing the policy to apply in some states but not others would create chaos in citizenship recognition.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, issued a dissent, arguing that the states lacked legal standing and warning against the overuse of universal injunctions. “We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism,” he wrote. However, Bumatay stopped short of weighing in on the constitutionality of the policy itself.
The White House and Department of Justice have not yet commented on the ruling. Meanwhile, legal experts suggest the case is now positioned to move swiftly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could issue a definitive ruling on the scope of the 14th Amendment in the modern immigration context.
To date, at least nine lawsuits have been filed across the country challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The 9th Circuit’s decision represents a major setback to efforts aimed at redefining the constitutional guarantee of citizenship based on birthright.
