9th Circuit Rules Order Violates the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause
A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld a ruling that blocks an executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without legal immigration status or with only temporary presence. The court found the order unconstitutional and affirmed the prior decision by a lower court.
National Injunction Maintained to Ensure Uniform Application of Citizenship Law
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that denying citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil, as outlined in the order, conflicts with constitutional protections. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour initially blocked the measure, describing the interpretation as inconsistent with the Constitution.
The appeals court upheld the nationwide injunction, emphasizing that the plaintiff states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — would face significant legal uncertainty if citizenship rules varied across jurisdictions. The majority agreed that a uniform remedy was necessary to provide complete relief to all states involved.
Judicial Opinions Split on Standing and Scope of Relief
While the majority supported the injunction, one judge dissented, arguing that the states lacked legal standing to sue and that broad injunctions should be granted cautiously. The dissent did not directly address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.
At the core of the legal debate is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. The challenged order sought to deny this right to children born under certain parental immigration conditions.
As legal challenges continue, the issue may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which could offer a definitive interpretation of the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship.
