President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship suffered another blow after a federal appeals court ruled it unconstitutional, keeping a nationwide block in place and setting up a likely showdown in the Supreme Court.
Key Facts:
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
- The court upheld a lower judge’s block, calling the EO unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
- The ruling keeps a nationwide injunction in place, with two Clinton-appointed judges supporting the decision.
- Trump appointee Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, saying states lacked standing but did not rule on constitutionality.
- The order would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if both parents are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The Rest of The Story:
President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship has again been blocked by the courts.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a previous ruling from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle that deemed the order unconstitutional.
The appeals court wrote, “The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation… is unconstitutional. We fully agree.”
The order would have denied U.S. citizenship to babies born on American soil if neither parent had legal or permanent status.
Although the Supreme Court has narrowed the use of nationwide injunctions, the 9th Circuit ruled this case fell within an exception.
The states that challenged the EO argued that inconsistent application of birthright rules across states would create legal chaos, and the court agreed.
Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould supported the nationwide injunction.
Judge Bumatay dissented on procedural grounds, stating that states lacked standing to sue but did not weigh in on the constitutional question.
Looks like birthright citizenship might be heading back to the Supreme Court. The 2-1 decision extends far broader relief than I think is appropriate under CASA. Judge Bumatay dissents — primarily on standing. He would hold states to the same standard as the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/l6O7O0oiJU
— Eric W. (@EWess92) July 23, 2025
Commentary:
For decades, birthright citizenship has been used as a loophole to bypass U.S. immigration laws.
The intent behind the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, not to incentivize illegal border crossings.
Yet today, individuals cross the border illegally to give birth on U.S. soil, ensuring their child becomes a citizen and creating a legal foothold for the family to remain.
This approach distorts the original meaning of the law and places strain on public resources.
Hospitals, schools, and welfare systems are impacted by those who come solely for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S.
This is not sustainable, and it’s not what the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind.
President Trump’s executive order sought to clarify and limit this interpretation.
While some argue this is heavy-handed, others see it as a necessary correction.
The backlash from activist judges has less to do with the Constitution and more to do with preserving the status quo.
States should not have the final say on federal citizenship rules—immigration and naturalization are firmly within federal jurisdiction.
Allowing patchwork rules across states would be legally disastrous and encourage more abuse.
This case also reveals the ongoing struggle between the executive and judicial branches.
When a sitting president attempts to enforce immigration policy through executive action, unelected judges now routinely override that authority, creating legal uncertainty.
Nine lawsuits are already in play across the country over this order, and each could result in conflicting decisions.
The Supreme Court will likely have to step in to resolve the matter once and for all.
The stakes are enormous, potentially affecting the citizenship status of thousands and the future of immigration enforcement.
Without a clear ruling, the incentive for illegal entry remains.
Ending birthright citizenship for those here unlawfully would remove a major driver behind illegal border crossings.
The law should reflect national interests, not serve as a reward for breaking it.
The Bottom Line:
Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship was again blocked, with the 9th Circuit declaring it unconstitutional.
The case now appears destined for the Supreme Court, where a final answer could reshape U.S. immigration law.
The outcome will determine whether the federal government can restrict automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants—a decision with wide-reaching implications for the border and beyond.
Read Next
– Gavin Newsom, California Democrats Plot Illegal Gerrymander To Increase Number of Dem House Seats
– Soros-Funded Groups Throw Support Behind GOP Bill Offering Legal Status to Millions
