THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jul 25, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Mattathias Schwartz


NextImg:Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Restrict Birthright Citizenship

A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship violated the Constitution, affirming a district court judge’s nationwide injunction and bringing the issue one step closer to a full constitutional review by the Supreme Court.

In a 48-page opinion, two of the three judges on the panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Trump’s executive order “contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

They rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the longstanding constitutional guarantee to birthright citizenship could be redefined to exclude babies born to undocumented immigrants, as well as babies born to mothers who are in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers, if the father is a noncitizen.

The ruling appears to be the first time that an appellate court has ruled on birthright citizenship after a Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of injunctions sent lawyers scrambling to recast their claims in light of its new standard.

The executive order was signed by Mr. Trump on his first day in office. Individuals, states and organizations brought lawsuits, leading to a number of nationwide injunctions that blocked its implementation on constitutional grounds. The Trump administration then appealed one of those cases on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court, but asked it to rule only on the legality of far-reaching injunctions, and not the underlying question of whether the executive order itself passed constitutional muster.

In the original case before Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, four states argued that Mr. Trump’s executive order would force them to put in place new systems to determine who is eligible for state benefits, and reduce the payments they receive from the federal government.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.