Appeals court finds Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship
unconstitutional, upholds block
[July 24, 2025]
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and HALLIE GOLDEN
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled
Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s order seeking to end birthright
citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that
blocked its enforcement nationwide.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals comes after Trump’s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in
New Hampshire. It marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in
and brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the
Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration
enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to
people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.
“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 majority wrote.
The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John
C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump’s effort to end birthright
citizenship and decried what he described as the administration’s
attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. Coughenour was
the first to block the order.
The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to
messages seeking comment.
The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges
to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide
injunctions.
But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the
exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of
states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the
problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the
law in half of the country.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete
relief," Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by
President Bill Clinton, wrote.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump speaks during an AI summit at the Andrew W.
Mellon Auditorium, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Washington. (AP
Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He
found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to
sue. “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,” he wrote.
Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship
would be constitutional.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S.
jurisdiction, are citizens.
Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase “subject to
United States jurisdiction” in the amendment means that citizenship
isn’t automatically conferred to children based on their birth
location alone.
The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that
ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a
landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court
found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen
by virtue of his birth on American soil.
Trump’s order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen
if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the
country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits
challenging the order have been filed around the U.S.
___
Associated Press writer Rebecca Boone contributed to this story.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
