A U.S. federal appeals court decided on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the country was unconstitutional, referencing the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision for birthright citizenship.
The decision was made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a lower court’s ruling that prohibited the executive order across the entire country.
The legal action was initiated by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, as well as individual claimants, who contested Executive Order No. 14160, signed by Trump on January 20.
The request aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother was either undocumented or had temporary legal status through a visa, and the father was not a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Judge Ronald Gould, speaking on behalf of the majority, stated that the order “contradicts the clear wording of the Fourteenth Amendment,” which ensures citizenship to “all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the country.”
The court concluded that the order breached both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and supported the lower court’s ruling by granting a broad preliminary injunction to prevent its implementation.
The decision highlighted that although the executive order was framed as safeguarding the “meaning and value” of American citizenship, it ultimately conflicted with more than a century of legal tradition, including the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling inUnited States vs. Wong Kim Ark, which granted birthright citizenship irrespective of the parents’ immigration status.
The court also determined that the plaintiff states had the right to bring the case, referencing evidence showing that withholding citizenship from these infants could result in financial damage, such as lost federal funding for health and welfare programs including Medicaid, CHIP, and foster care services.
The states would have needed to reform their eligibility processes and would have forfeited administrative fees associated with Social Security numbers provided at birth.
The judges rejected the arguments made by the individual plaintiffs, who were pregnant asylum applicants, stating that their cases fell under a different nationwide lawsuit currently being handled in a federal court in New Hampshire.
Although other courts throughout the country have made comparable decisions, such as in Massachusetts and Maryland, the Supreme Court has recently addressed the extent of injunctions, restricting those that are based only on individual or group plaintiffs, while still allowing for wider remedies in cases led by the state.
Judge Patrick Bumatay partially dissented, opposing the wide-ranging injunction.
