A federal appeals court in Seattle has upheld a ruling that blocks President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States.
On Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the nation.
Judge Ronald Gould, appointed by President Bill Clinton, stated in his opinion that the President does not possess the authority to change or modify any clause in the Constitution.
The ruling aligns with an earlier decision by U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, who issued an indefinite preliminary injunction against Trump’s order in February after describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit was brought forth by several states—Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Illinois—and two pregnant women who were concerned about their children’s citizenship status.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown celebrated the appeals court ruling, emphasizing that the President cannot unilaterally redefine what it means to be an American.
He stated, “He cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country.”
The appeals court’s decision adds to the growing list of rulings that have deemed Trump’s executive order unconstitutional, blocking its enforcement nationally.
The case’s proceedings in June involved arguments from both the Department of Justice and Washington’s attorney general’s office.
In a notable decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges like Coughenour had overstepped their authority by blocking Trump’s order nationwide, suggesting that such injunctions should only provide complete relief to specific plaintiffs.
This Supreme Court ruling created a situation where certain states could retain birthright citizenship, while others might not enforce it.
The high court did not address the merits of Trump’s order; instead, it focused on the limitations of judicial powers concerning nationwide injunctions.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield expressed pride in the state’s commitment to defending birthright citizenship.
He remarked, “Oregon challenged this executive order because we understood what was at stake.”
Rayfield pointed out that the order would threaten the citizenship of children who are just as American as any other child in the country.
Judge Gould’s ruling is the second to mandate a nationwide block of the executive order since the Supreme Court’s decision, following a ruling by a federal judge from New Hampshire.
The Trump administration is attempting to redefine the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment to include only those with primary allegiance to the U.S., potentially excluding children born to parents who are in the country temporarily or without legal status.
According to the plaintiffs, approximately 153,000 babies were born in the U.S. in 2022 to parents who hold no legal immigration status, including 4,000 in Washington state alone.
The states involved in the lawsuit have indicated that they would face significant federal funding losses through programs such as Medicaid, which could otherwise assist these children if they were recognized as citizens.
Judge Gould found these arguments compelling, noting the need for a comprehensive injunction to prevent the executive branch from violating constitutional guarantees.
In his opinion, he asserted, “The preliminary injunction here merely prevents the Executive Branch from denying citizenship to individuals who are likely constitutionally entitled to citizenship.”
He concluded that the Executive Branch does not possess a legitimate interest in contravening the Constitution, and therefore, the public interest does not favor the enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, argued that the states lack the standing to challenge the order, claiming their financial losses are a self-inflicted injury due to choices made regarding the provision of benefits to undocumented immigrants.
In summary, this recent ruling affirms the stance that the federal government’s effort to limit birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and reinforces the constitutional rights of children born in the United States.
image source from：portlandtribune
