Quick summary
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to enforce an executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
• Trump’s order, issued on his second day back in office, aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent was a citizen or lawful resident, challenging the 14th Amendment.
• A lawsuit led by attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon resulted in a federal court injunction blocking the order, with Judge John C. Coughenour calling the policy “blatantly unconstitutional.”
• The appeals panel unanimously upheld the injunction, including Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Trump appointee, who dismissed the administration’s claim of an emergency.
• Legal experts warn that the executive order contradicts more than a century of precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upholds birthright citizenship.
• If enforced, the order would deny citizenship to over 150,000 children born annually in the U.S., creating a class of stateless individuals and undermining constitutional protections.
• The case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority could redefine longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
The Trump administration’s effort to redefine birthright citizenship—one of the most fundamental principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—has been dealt another legal blow. On Wednesday, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s request for an emergency stay on a lower court’s injunction, halting the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at curbing automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil.
The executive order, signed on Trump’s second day in office during his second term, claims that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted for over a century and should not extend citizenship to all individuals born within the United States. The attempt to alter this foundational aspect of American citizenship law contradicts longstanding Supreme Court precedent and threatens to undermine protections that have been central to the nation’s legal framework since the post-Civil War era.
At the heart of Trump’s executive order is a bold attempt to reinterpret the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The Trump administration’s order argues that this clause does not guarantee citizenship to every person born in the country. If enforced, the policy would strip citizenship from children born to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Such a policy would represent a radical shift in immigration law, undermining a constitutional protection upheld for over 125 years.
This move comes as part of Trump’s broader hardline immigration strategy, targeting immigrants and challenging established constitutional rights through executive power. Legal scholars have pointed out that this attempt defies over a century of judicial precedent—most notably, the landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The executive order faced immediate backlash, with attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, along with several pregnant women, filing a lawsuit to block the policy. On January 23, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against the policy, later extending it into an indefinite preliminary injunction.
In a strongly worded opinion, Judge Coughenour, a Republican appointee from the Reagan era, condemned the administration’s attempt to sidestep constitutional law:
“The rule of law is, according to [Trump], something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain. In this courtroom and under my watch the rule of law is a bright beacon, which I intend to follow.”
When the Trump administration appealed the injunction, the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously rejected the request for an emergency stay, reinforcing the importance of constitutional adherence over executive ambition.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling represents a clear rejection of the administration’s efforts to rush through constitutional changes under the guise of executive authority. The three-judge panel—comprising appointees from both Democratic and Republican administrations—unanimously dismissed Trump’s appeal.
Notably, Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Trump appointee, issued a concurring opinion, stating that the request did not meet the threshold for an emergency:
“Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make.”
This bipartisan judicial consensus undermines the administration’s frequent claims of political bias in the courts. Judges William Canby (appointed by Jimmy Carter) and Milan Smith (appointed by George W. Bush) also participated in the ruling, further highlighting the nonpartisan commitment to upholding the Constitution.
The administration’s executive order directly attacks the foundation of American citizenship rights by challenging the clear language of the 14th Amendment. Legal experts warn that if allowed to stand, Trump’s policy would create a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing future presidents to reinterpret constitutional rights through executive action.
In their response, state attorneys general emphasized that the case is not about immigration but about the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution:
“This is not a case about ‘immigration.’ It is about citizenship rights that the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute intentionally and explicitly place beyond the President’s authority to condition or deny.”
Should the policy be enforced, it could deny U.S. citizenship to more than 150,000 children born annually—a shift that would disenfranchise an entire generation of U.S.-born individuals and create a class of stateless persons with limited legal protections.
Public opinion is firmly against altering birthright citizenship. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last month revealed that 59 percent of Americans support keeping the current standard intact, with only 36% backing the idea of changing it.
Immigrant rights groups, legal scholars, and civil liberties organizations have condemned the executive order as a dangerous and unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority. Critics argue that this move is yet another attempt by Trump to undermine democratic institutions and target marginalized communities.
Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a significant victory for defenders of the Constitution, the battle over birthright citizenship is far from over. With six conservative justices—three appointed by Trump—currently on the bench, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to hear the case in the near future.
Legal experts caution that a ruling from the Court could set a historic precedent, fundamentally altering the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and reshaping the foundation of U.S. citizenship law.
The Ninth Circuit’s rejection of Trump’s appeal underscores the enduring power of the U.S. Constitution and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights. As this case moves toward what could be a landmark Supreme Court decision, the nation faces a critical test of its commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
As Judge Coughenour warned, the attempt to navigate around the Constitution for political gain threatens to erode the very foundations of American democracy. For now, the courts have reaffirmed that birthright citizenship remains a constitutional guarantee, not a privilege to be redefined by executive decree.
COMMENTS