A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled to uphold a lower court’s decision blocking President Trump’s executive order that sought to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. The majority opinion, led by Judges Michael Day Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould, both appointed by former President Bill Clinton, concluded that the order is likely unconstitutional. They emphasized that the executive order would deny citizenship to numerous individuals born on U.S. soil, contradicting the Constitution’s guarantees.
The case was brought forth by Democratic attorneys general from multiple states, including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, who argued that Trump’s birthright citizenship directive was not legally tenable. Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented partially, stating that he believed the states lacked the standing to challenge the executive order’s legality. He raised concerns regarding judicial overreach and stressed that the judicial branch must remain within its constitutional limits, regardless of the importance of the issues presented to the court.
The majority judges maintained that the states were entitled to a nationwide injunction rather than a more limited ruling. This decision remains in line with a prior injunction issued by Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour, which prevented the executive order from taking effect. Other federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have similarly issued broad injunctions blocking Trump’s directive, reflecting a growing legal pushback against the administration’s immigration policies.
This ruling follows a Supreme Court decision indicating that nationwide injunctions from lower courts could exceed their constitutional authority. Nonetheless, it allows certain plaintiffs, including states and those involved in class-action lawsuits, to pursue universal injunctions when necessary for comprehensive relief. Following the high court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit and a New Hampshire district court affirmed nationwide injunctions against the birthright citizenship order, setting a significant precedent for the scope of judicial authority in policy disputes.
At the heart of the appeal is Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship has been misused, leading to “birth tourism,” wherein foreign nationals have children in the U.S. to secure citizenship for them. The executive order aimed to restrict automatic citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident, departing from the established interpretation grounded in the 14th Amendment. This amendment asserts that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, a principle deeply rooted in American jurisprudence and history.
Critics, including Trump’s opponents, assert that the administration’s interpretations and initiatives regarding birthright citizenship have the potential to redefine citizenship in a manner that undermines the constitutional protections originally designed for all individuals born in the country. The broader implications of such a shift would not only impact current immigration policies but may also resonate through future legal interpretations and rights of citizenship in the United States. The White House has yet to respond to media inquiries regarding this ruling, leaving the future of the executive order in a state of uncertainty as legal battles continue.
