Appeals court declares Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional

In the United States, a federal appeals court ruled on July 24, 2025, that President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. This decision was made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and comes after a series of legal challenges to the order, which proposed denying citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or noncitizen parents. The ruling affirmed a previous lower court decision that blocked the order's enforcement nationwide. The 9th Circuit's majority opinion, articulated by Judges Ronald Gould and Michael Hawkins, stated that the executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment guarantees that all individuals born in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, automatically receive citizenship. The judges emphasized that the order contradicts the clear language of this constitutional provision, asserting that any attempt by the executive branch to redefine citizenship through an order is fundamentally invalid. The Trump administration had argued that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. They maintained that such children do not have sufficient allegiance to the United States to qualify for citizenship. However, the appeals court disagreed, citing historical legal interpretations and the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The ruling marked a significant moment as it was the first time an appellate court has directly addressed the merits of Trump's birthright citizenship initiative. This executive order, signed shortly after Trump's inauguration, had faced intense scrutiny and multiple lawsuits from states, civil rights organizations, and individuals. The states involved in this lawsuit, including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, argued that the directive would cause financial harm by disrupting federal reimbursements for social programs like Medicaid. The court's decision to maintain a nationwide injunction indicated a recognition of the need for consistent citizenship standards across the country, rather than allowing a patchwork of differing laws based on geography. This ruling brings the issue closer to the Likely Supreme Court involvement, where broader implications for immigration and citizenship policy could be reconsidered.