Federal Appeals Court Stops Trump from Ending Birthright Citizenship, Calling It "Unconstitutional"

A federal appeals court in San Francisco announced on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. This ruling supports a previous decision from a lower court that had blocked the order nationwide.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, consisting of three judges, made this ruling after a federal judge in New Hampshire also stopped Trump's plan. This is the first time an appeals court has addressed this matter, bringing it closer to being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit's decision prevents the Trump administration from enforcing an order that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or temporarily in the country.

The majority opinion stated, "The district court correctly determined that the Executive Order's interpretation, which would deny citizenship to many born in the U.S., is unconstitutional. We completely agree." This 2-1 ruling upholds an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who condemned the administration's efforts as a way to ignore the Constitution for political reasons. Coughenour was the first judge to block the order.

The White House and Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments.

Recently, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of lower court judges to issue orders that apply to the entire country, known as nationwide injunctions. However, the 9th Circuit majority found that this case fell into an exception that allows for a broad order. A group of states argued that a nationwide order was necessary to avoid complications if birthright citizenship were only upheld in some states.

Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould noted, "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction to provide the States complete relief."

Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, disagreed. He argued that the states did not have the legal right to sue. He stated, "We should be skeptical of requests for universal relief, as seeking 'complete relief' shouldn't be a way to get universal injunctions." Bumatay did not comment on whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to U.S. laws is a citizen.

Justice Department lawyers contend that the phrase "subject to United States jurisdiction" means that citizenship isn’t automatically granted to children based solely on where they are born. In contrast, the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon argue that this view misinterprets the clear language of the Citizenship Clause and overlooks a key Supreme Court case from 1898 that decided a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen simply because he was born in the U.S.

Trump's order claims that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother is undocumented or is in the country temporarily, and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. Currently, at least nine lawsuits challenging this order have been filed across the country.