Appeals court rules Trump’s birthright citizenship order unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s order attempting to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, delivering another legal blow to his immigration policy agenda.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide block on the executive order first issued by a federal judge in New Hampshire. The ruling sets the stage for a possible Supreme Court review, which could test the limits of presidential power and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

What is birthright citizenship and what did Trump try to do?

The backstory:

Trump’s executive order sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to noncitizen parents. This right, known as birthright citizenship, is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that all people born or naturalized in the country are citizens.

Trump had long criticized the policy as a "magnet" for illegal immigration and argued he could end it via executive authority. Legal scholars widely rejected that claim, saying only Congress—or a constitutional amendment—could change that right.

Why did the court allow a nationwide block?

Dig deeper:

The ruling preserves an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who was the first to block the order. Coughenour sharply criticized the Trump administration’s effort, calling it a political move that disregarded the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court has recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, the appeals court said this case met the exception. The majority found that having inconsistent citizenship rules across states would create legal chaos and harm the states’ interests.

"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief," Hawkins and Gould wrote.

What they're saying:

In a dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, argued that the states lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and cautioned against the growing use of nationwide injunctions.

"We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of ‘complete relief’ isn’t a backdoor to universal injunctions," Bumatay wrote. He did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself.

Meanwhile, Justice Department lawyers have maintained that the 14th Amendment’s phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" gives the government the power to restrict citizenship in certain cases—a view not shared by the majority of the court.

What's next:

The case is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices may be asked to resolve both the constitutional question and whether lower courts can continue issuing sweeping nationwide blocks.

At least nine other lawsuits challenging Trump’s order have been filed in different states. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could redefine the scope of presidential power over immigration and how courts handle constitutional protections.