In a significant legal development, a second federal court has ruled to halt former President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, maintaining that the order cannot be enforced anywhere in the United States.
This decision comes shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions — a ruling that affected how federal courts can issue broad legal blocks on presidential policies.
This article explores the background, the legal arguments, the recent court decisions, and the broader implications of this ongoing legal battle over birthright citizenship in the United States.
More Read: Advocates Call for Shutdown of ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Over Inhumane Conditions
What is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the constitutional principle that guarantees anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This provision has been foundational in American immigration law and civil rights, ensuring that citizenship is not restricted based on the immigration status of a child’s parents.
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order: What Did It Propose?
In September 2023, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order aiming to change the longstanding birthright citizenship policy. The order sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if at least one parent was not a citizen or legal permanent resident. This marked a radical shift from established law, targeting what Trump and his administration described as “birth tourism” and unauthorized immigration.
The executive order was met with immediate legal challenges from multiple states and civil rights organizations. Opponents argued that the order was unconstitutional and contradicted the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Nationwide Injunctions
Before the latest court ruling, the Supreme Court had issued a pivotal decision regarding the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts. A nationwide injunction is a court order that prevents a policy or law from being enforced anywhere in the country, not just within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the case.
In a 6-3 decision late last month, the Supreme Court limited the use of such injunctions. The court ruled that federal judges should not automatically issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies for the entire country, especially when the case only involves specific parties.
However, the Supreme Court left open exceptions where nationwide relief might still be appropriate, such as in class action lawsuits or cases where states can demonstrate that a narrower injunction would not provide complete relief.
The Second Federal Court Decision: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its own ruling on Trump’s birthright citizenship order. On Wednesday, the court ruled 2-1 that four Democratic-led states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—were entitled to a nationwide injunction blocking the executive order.
Why a Nationwide Injunction?
The court reasoned that a geographically limited injunction would be insufficient to protect the states’ interests. According to U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, any partial block would still force states to deal with complications because residents could give birth in states not covered by the injunction or move between states, thereby undermining the states’ eligibility verification systems for Medicaid, CHIP, and Title IV-E.
Gould wrote, “States’ residents may give birth in a non-party state, and individuals subject to the Executive Order from non-party states will inevitably move to the States.”
The Split Decision: Dissenting Opinion
U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, dissented from the majority. He argued that the states did not have the legal standing to bring the case and warned against courts overstepping their jurisdictional boundaries.
Bumatay cautioned, “Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief. Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds.”
His dissent reflected a conservative judicial philosophy emphasizing strict adherence to jurisdictional limits, especially in politically charged cases.
Earlier Nationwide Injunction: New Hampshire Federal Court
This 9th Circuit ruling is the second nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s order after the Supreme Court’s decision. Earlier, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) request to certify a nationwide class of unborn children. The court indefinitely blocked enforcement of the order against this class, underscoring the continued legal resistance to the policy.
Legal and Political Implications
The rulings highlight ongoing tensions between different branches of government and between states and the federal government over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation.
Constitutional Questions
The primary legal argument against Trump’s order is that it violates the 14th Amendment. Legal scholars largely agree that birthright citizenship applies to virtually everyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Attempts to reinterpret this constitutional right face significant judicial skepticism.
Impact on Immigration Policy
If Trump’s order had been enforced, it would have marked a drastic shift in immigration and citizenship policy, affecting millions of people born in the U.S. to undocumented or non-resident parents. The legal challenges show how courts remain a key battleground in immigration debates.
Nationwide Injunctions Debate
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on nationwide injunctions has added complexity to how courts manage cases with broad policy implications. While the court restricted the scope of injunctions, it acknowledged that nationwide blocks remain possible under certain conditions, as demonstrated by the 9th Circuit decision.
What Happens Next?
Legal battles over Trump’s birthright citizenship order are expected to continue. Both sides may appeal to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to further clarification on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship restrictions and the appropriate use of nationwide injunctions.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration and other federal entities will likely continue to defend birthright citizenship as constitutionally protected.
Frequently Asked Question
What was Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order?
Trump’s executive order aimed to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The policy sought to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which currently guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
Why did the federal court block Trump’s order nationwide?
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the states challenging the order would suffer irreparable harm if the policy was only partially blocked. As such, a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide full relief and prevent disruption to state services like Medicaid and CHIP.
How does the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions affect this case?
While the Supreme Court recently limited federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, it also allowed exceptions. States can still receive broad relief if needed, and class action lawsuits can also justify nationwide blocks. The 9th Circuit applied this exception in its ruling.
Which states challenged the birthright citizenship order in the 9th Circuit case?
The states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, all led by Democratic attorneys general, brought the case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They argued the policy would disrupt public services and violate the Constitution.
What is the 14th Amendment and how does it relate to birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment guarantees that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. It forms the legal foundation of birthright citizenship and directly contradicts Trump’s attempt to redefine citizenship through executive action.
What was the dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit ruling?
Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, arguing that the states lacked standing and that the court was overreaching its authority. He warned against judicial overreach into contentious policy issues beyond the scope of the court’s jurisdiction.
What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship?
The case may proceed to the Supreme Court for final review. Until then, the nationwide injunction remains in place, and Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship cannot be enforced anywhere in the U.S.
Conclusion
The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order nationwide reinforces the enduring power of the 14th Amendment and highlights ongoing judicial checks on presidential policy initiatives. Despite the Supreme Court’s curtailment of nationwide injunctions, courts remain willing to grant such relief when necessary to protect states’ interests fully. This legal saga illustrates the complex interplay between constitutional law, immigration policy, and federalism in the United States, underscoring why birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of American identity and legal tradition.
