A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to deny U.S. citizenship to some children born in the country is unconstitutional, citing the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The ruling came from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court’s decision to block the executive order nationwide.
The lawsuit was brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, along with individual plaintiffs, who challenged Executive Order No. 14160, issued by Trump on Jan. 20.
The order sought to withhold citizenship from children born in the U.S. if their mother was either undocumented or lawfully present on a temporary visa, and the father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the majority, said the order “contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment,” which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The court determined that the order violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act and upheld the lower court’s decision to issue a universal preliminary injunction to block enforcement.
The ruling emphasized that while the executive order was presented as protecting the “meaning and value” of American citizenship, it ultimately clashed with over a century of legal precedent, including the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship regardless of parents’ immigration status.
The court also found that the plaintiff states had standing, citing evidence that denying citizenship to affected infants would have led to economic harm, including lost federal reimbursements for health and welfare programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and foster care services.
The states would have been required to overhaul eligibility systems and would lose administrative fees tied to Social Security numbers issued at birth.
The judges dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs, who were pregnant asylum seekers, ruling that their claims were covered under a separate nationwide class-action case being litigated in New Hampshire federal court.
While other courts across the country have issued similar rulings, including in Massachusetts and Maryland, the Supreme Court recently weighed in on the scope of injunctions, limiting those based solely on individual or associational plaintiffs but leaving the door open for broader relief tied to state-led cases.
Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented in part, arguing against the broad injunction.
©2025 Cox Media Group
