A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement.
This judgment from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks the first time an appeals court has directly addressed the issue, paving the way for a potential Supreme Court review.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling maintains a blockade against the Trump administration’s plan to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to individuals who are present illegally or are only in the country temporarily.
In their opinion, the majority of the court stated, “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 ruling builds upon a decision made by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who was the first to halt the implementation of the executive order. Coughenour characterized the administration’s attempt to disregard the Constitution for political purposes as troubling.
The White House and the Justice Department have not yet commented on the latest ruling.
The Supreme Court has previously restricted the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions affecting the entire country, but the 9th Circuit judges concluded that this case fell under one of the exceptions articulated by the justices.
In this situation, a coalition of states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—argued that a nationwide order was necessary to avert complications that could arise if birthright citizenship were treated inconsistently across different states.
Judge Michael Hawkins and Judge Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote, “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief.”
In contrast, Judge Patrick Bumatay, nominated by President Trump, dissented and questioned whether the states indeed had the legal standing to file their lawsuit. He suggested that requests for universal relief should be approached with skepticism, warning against the misuse of “complete relief” to justify broad injunctions.
Bumatay’s dissent did not address the constitutional implications of ending birthright citizenship directly.
The issue of birthright citizenship is grounded in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that all individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the clause’s phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” implies that citizenship is not solely determined by the birthplace of a child.
The states contest this interpretation, asserting that it undermines the plain language of the Citizenship Clause. They also cite a pivotal Supreme Court decision from 1898, which granted citizenship to a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents based on the fact of his birth on American soil.
Under the proposed order by President Trump, a child born in the U.S. would not be considered a citizen if the mother lacked legal immigration status or was present temporarily, and if the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Numerous lawsuits challenging this order have emerged across the country, reflecting the significant public interest and legal complexities surrounding the issue of birthright citizenship.
image source from：npr
