An appeals court on Wednesday enforced a nationwide birthright citizenship injunction despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that federal courts do not have the final power to issue nationwide injunctions.

The decision from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco argued President Donald Trump’s order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

Recommended Stories

• Education Department investigating five universities over DACA scholarships discrimination
• New $250 'visa integrity fee' will affect millions of foreign visitors to US
• Court gives Trump win in striking down New Jersey law banning immigration detention contracts

“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.

But the Supreme Court’s order last month ruled that district courts exceeded their power by issuing sweeping universal injunctions concerning birthright citizenship.

“After today’s decision, that order of operations will not change,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion last month about the Supreme Court’s authority over courts of appeal and district courts. “In justiciable cases, this Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions—that is, the interim legal status for the several-year period before a final decision on the merits.”

The San Francisco justices justified their order by saying there was a loophole, in which the suing parties fit into, that allowed the court of appeals to issue a nationwide injunction. Multiple states had filed the case against the Trump administration who argued they need a nationwide order to prevent issues from birthright citizenship only being valid 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 Clinton appointees, wrote.

Trump appointee Patrick Bumatay dissented, saying the states do not have a legal right 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.

The Supreme Court had limited the injunctions to only the suing parties.

“The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. “The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

While courts have ruled that Trump’s efforts to subvert birthright citizenship are unconstitutional, the judiciary, the Supreme Court previously ruled, has overstepped its bounds.

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett added. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

SUPREME COURT LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IN TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

Trump once called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration,” and is seeking to end it.

Birthright citizenship is granted in the 14th Amendment, which says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys and others have interpreted the “subject to U.S. jurisdiction” phrase to mean citizenship is not automatically conferred based on location. Trump specifically has said that the clause was meant for the children of slaves.