Birthright Citizenship Ban Blocked by Appeals Court

The provided text focuses on a federal appeals court’s decision to block President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors. This ruling, from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, deemed the order unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, affirming a nationwide injunction. Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that scaled back some universal injunctions, the 9th Circuit maintained its broad block, citing the potential for harm to states. The source also generally discusses the Trump administration’s broader immigration policies, highlighting increased enforcement, border security funding, and the legal challenges these policies have faced in various courts, with mixed success.

Birthright Citizenship Ban: Legal Challenges and Outcomes

The birthright citizenship ban refers to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that sought to deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors. This measure was part of President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement priorities during his second term, which also included declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying troops, largely closing access to asylum, suspending refugee resettlement, and ending temporary humanitarian protections for certain groups. His administration also aimed to significantly increase the number of arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, diverting resources from agencies like the FBI, U.S. Marshals, DEA, and ATF, and securing substantial funding for border security and immigration enforcement.

Here’s a breakdown of the legal challenges and outcomes regarding the birthright citizenship ban:

• 9th Circuit Court Ruling The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on this executive order, finding it unconstitutional. A three-judge panel, with Judges Ronald M. Gould and Michael Daly Hawkins (both appointed by former President Bill Clinton) in the majority, ruled 2-1 that Trump’s directive violates the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented in part. The court explicitly stated that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, which would deny citizenship to many U.S.-born persons, is unconstitutional.
• Nationwide InjunctionsThe 9th Circuit appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s nationwide injunction against the ban, deeming it “necessary and appropriate to protect the states from potential harm if Trump’s order took effect”. The initial case was brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states and first heard by a district judge in Seattle.
• The 9th Circuit further explained that if the district court judge’s nationwide injunction were narrowed, Democratic-led states could still be adversely affected because they would need to overhaul their systems to determine citizenship, given that parents and children move between states.
• This ruling means that two nationwide injunctions are currently in effect against the birthright citizenship ban. A federal judge in New Hampshire also placed a new nationwide block on the administration by certifying a class-action challenge against the order, representing U.S.-born children whose automatic citizenship could be jeopardized.
• Supreme Court’s Prior StanceWeeks before the 9th Circuit decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had sided with the Trump administration regarding universal injunctions, in a 6-3 decision, agreeing to scale back lower-court injunctions that had blocked the order from moving forward.
• Crucially, the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself. Instead, it kept the ban on hold for at least 30 days and sent cases back to lower courts to assess the practical implications of their ruling.
• However, the justices also stated that nationwide injunctions could still be issued in some circumstances.
• Ongoing Legal Battle The 9th Circuit’s decision, resulting in two nationwide injunctions, signals that the case could quickly return to the Supreme Court to determine if the rulings are consistent with its previous order. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state was involved in the lawsuit, affirmed that “the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen” and “cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country”.
• Mixed Success in Courts The Trump administration has faced mixed success in fighting challenges to its immigration agenda. While the Supreme Court green-lit the removal of temporary protected status for Venezuelans and backed the scaling back of some lower-court injunctions on birthright citizenship, it also ruled that the administration had illegally deported Kilmar Abrego García to El Salvador and ordered his return. The high court has yet to weigh in on the merits of several of Trump’s most aggressive measures, including the legality of birthright citizenship itself or the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

In essence, the birthright citizenship ban is like an attempt to reroute a river by building a dam with a leaky foundation. The administration tried to redirect the flow of citizenship, but the courts, acting as legal engineers, found the very basis of that dam—the executive order—to be unconstitutional and full of holes, allowing the river of automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children to continue flowing nationwide, at least for now. The Supreme Court’s previous involvement was less about the dam itself and more about whether lower courts were building too many small blockades, but they still left open the possibility for larger, more fundamental blockades if the situation warranted it.

14th Amendment: The Foundation of Birthright Citizenship

The 14th Amendment, particularly its citizenship clause, is a cornerstone of the legal discussion surrounding the birthright citizenship ban.

Here’s what the sources indicate about the 14th Amendment:

• Constitutional Violation: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit explicitly ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order, which sought to deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors, “violates the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment”.
• Unconstitutional Interpretation: In the majority opinion, Judge Ronald M. Gould stated that the district court had “correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional“. The appeals court fully agreed with this finding.
• Basis for Injunctions: The unconstitutionality found by the courts, based on the 14th Amendment, led to the affirmation of a nationwide injunction against the ban. This injunction was deemed “necessary and appropriate to protect the states from potential harm if Trump’s order took effect”.

In essence, the 14th Amendment serves as the legal bedrock for birthright citizenship in the United States, and the courts have consistently affirmed that any executive action attempting to redefine or deny this right, as President Trump’s order did, directly conflicts with its established meaning.

Think of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause as a digital key-card system for a building, programmed to automatically grant access to anyone who enters through the main door. The birthright citizenship ban was an attempt to reprogram this system to deny access to certain people who entered through that same main door. However, the courts found that this reprogramming was unconstitutional, meaning it directly violated the original, fundamental design principles of the building’s access system, ensuring that the automatic granting of access (citizenship) remains in place for all born within the building (U.S.).

Judicial Review of Presidential Power

Judicial review, while not explicitly defined in the provided sources, is demonstrated through the actions and rulings of the U.S. courts in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. It refers to the power of the judiciary to assess the constitutionality and legality of executive actions and legislation.

In the context of the birthright citizenship ban, judicial review has unfolded as follows:

• Initial Review and Finding of Unconstitutionality: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit engaged in judicial review by directly evaluating President Trump’s executive order. They explicitly ruled that the order was unconstitutional. The court found that the directive violates the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Judge Ronald M. Gould, in the majority opinion, stated that the district court had “correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional,” a conclusion with which the appeals court “fully agree[d]”.
• Issuance and Affirmation of Injunctions: As part of their review, courts have the power to block actions deemed unconstitutional or illegal. The 9th Circuit appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s nationwide injunction against the ban, stating it was “necessary and appropriate to protect the states from potential harm if Trump’s order took effect”. This signifies the judiciary’s power to prevent executive actions from being implemented if they are found to be unlawful.
• Supreme Court’s Oversight Role: The Supreme Court also plays a critical role in judicial review. While the justices did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself in a particular instance, they agreed to scale back lower-court injunctions that had previously blocked the order. However, they did leave open the possibility for nationwide injunctions to still be issued in some circumstances. This indicates the Supreme Court’s role in guiding the scope of lower court injunctions, even if they don’t immediately weigh in on the merits of a policy’s legality. The 9th Circuit explained that nationwide injunctions were justified because states could be “adversely affected” by the need to “overhaul their systems to determine citizenship” if parents and children move between states.
• Ongoing Legal Battle and Mixed Success: The 9th Circuit’s decision, resulting in two nationwide injunctions, signals that the case could quickly return to the Supreme Court to determine if the rulings are consistent with its previous order. This highlights that judicial review is often a multi-stage process involving different levels of courts. The Trump administration has faced mixed success in fighting challenges to its immigration agenda in the courts, demonstrating that judicial review acts as a check on executive power, sometimes affirming executive actions and sometimes overturning them.
• Limiting Executive Power: The role of judicial review is summarized by Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown’s statement that “the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen” and “cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country”. This emphasizes how judicial review ensures that executive actions adhere to constitutional principles and established law.

Think of judicial review as a constitutional referee. When the executive branch (like the President with an executive order) attempts to score a point (implement a policy), the judiciary (the courts) steps in to ensure that the play is fair and follows the rules set out in the “rulebook” (the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment). If the play is found to be “illegal” or “unconstitutional,” the referee “blows the whistle” and stops it (issues an injunction). Sometimes, the head referee (the Supreme Court) might step in to clarify how the rules apply or to review the decisions of the other referees, but the core function remains to uphold the integrity of the game according to its fundamental rules.

Nationwide Injunctions and Birthright Citizenship

Nationwide injunctions are legal orders issued by a court that block the implementation of a particular policy or executive action across the entire country, rather than just for the specific parties involved in the lawsuit. In the context of the birthright citizenship ban, these injunctions have played a crucial role in preventing President Donald Trump’s executive order from taking effect.

Here’s a detailed discussion of nationwide injunctions related to the birthright citizenship ban:

• 9th Circuit Affirmation and Reasoning:
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s nationwide injunction against President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.
• The appeals panel deemed the measure “necessary and appropriate to protect the states from potential harm” if Trump’s order were to take effect.
• The case originated from a coalition of Democratic-led states and was first heard by a district judge in Seattle.
• Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the majority, explicitly stated, “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal preliminary injunction, and we affirm the injunction’s scope”.
• The 9th Circuit elaborated on its reasoning for upholding the nationwide scope, explaining that if the injunction were narrowed, Democratic-led states could still be “adversely affected” because they would “need to overhaul their systems to determine citizenship” due to the movement of parents and children between states.
• Supreme Court’s Prior Stance and Nuance:
• The 9th Circuit’s decision came despite a prior U.S. Supreme Court ruling that had seemingly “sided with the Trump administration’s argument that several federal judges had exceeded their authority in issuing universal injunctions” against the birthright citizenship order.
• The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, agreed to “scale back lower-court injunctions” that had previously blocked the order from moving forward. This decision kept Trump’s birthright ban on hold for at least 30 days and sent cases back to lower courts to assess the practical implications of their ruling.
• However, crucially, the justices “did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order” itself.
• Furthermore, the Supreme Court “said nationwide injunctions could still be issued in some circumstances”. They also “left open the ability to try to block a policy nationwide through class-action lawsuits”.
• New Nationwide Block via Class Action:
• Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, a federal judge in New Hampshire “placed a new nationwide block on the administration”. This occurred by agreeing to certify a class-action challenge against Trump’s order on behalf of U.S.-born children whose automatic citizenship could be jeopardized.
• Current Status and Future Outlook:
• As a result of these rulings, “two nationwide injunctions are in effect” against the birthright citizenship ban.
• This situation “signals that the case could quickly return to the Supreme Court” to determine whether these latest rulings are consistent with its previous order regarding universal injunctions.
• Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized the judiciary’s role in this, stating that “the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen” and “cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country”.

In essence, nationwide injunctions act like a universal stop sign placed at every entrance to a national park. Even if the government tries to implement a new rule about who can enter (the birthright citizenship ban), the courts, acting as legal traffic cops, have the power to put up a stop sign that applies to all entrances simultaneously, preventing the rule from taking effect anywhere in the park, because they found the rule itself to be against the park’s foundational principles. While the “head traffic cop” (Supreme Court) initially seemed to question how many stop signs were being issued, they clarified that such a universal stop sign is sometimes necessary and permissible, leading to its continued enforcement across the entire “park” (the U.S.).

Trump’s Immigration Enforcement: Policies, Resources, and Court Battles

The sources indicate that immigration enforcement was a top priority for President Donald Trump during his administration, marked by an aggressive crackdown and significant resource diversion, often facing pushback in the courts.

Here’s a breakdown of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts:

• Aggressive Crackdown and Executive Orders:
• Since returning to the White House, President Trump made immigration enforcement a top priority.
• He issued a series of executive orders aimed at increasing enforcement.
• These orders included declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border and deploying hundreds of troops there.
• A key component of his agenda was the attempt to end birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants and foreign visitors.
• The administration also largely closed access to the asylum process on the southern border.
• Other measures involved suspending refugee resettlement and ending temporary humanitarian protections for thousands of people from countries like Venezuela, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
• In one instance, Trump invoked the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan migrants to a jail in El Salvador without a court hearing. The administration also removed migrants to conflict-ridden South Sudan.
• Data indicated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were increasingly targeting migrants with no criminal record.
• Increased Resources and Personnel:
• Trump’s campaign promise was to deport millions of immigrants who were in the country illegally.
• Administration officials directed ICE to aggressively ramp up arrests, from a few hundred per day to at least 3,000.
• To meet these ambitious goals, the administration enlisted personnel from other federal agencies including the FBI, U.S. Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
• Congress passed a massive spending bill funneling nearly $170 billion toward border security and immigration enforcement. These funds were intended to allow the administration to hire nearly 20,000 immigration officers and double the number of beds available in immigration detention centers.
• Pushback in the Courts:
• The Trump administration faced mixed success in fighting challenges to its immigration agenda in the courts.
• Advocacy groups and others filed numerous lawsuits over many of Trump’s policies.
• While the Supreme Court green-lit the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to remove temporary protected status for Venezuelans and backed Trump’s request to scale back lower-court orders that had blocked the birthright citizenship ban, it also ruled that the administration had illegally deported Kilmar Abrego García to El Salvador and ordered officials to facilitate his return.
• Crucially, the high court had not yet weighed in on the merits of several of Trump’s most aggressive measures, including his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants to El Salvador or the legality of birthright citizenship.
• Regarding the birthright citizenship ban, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit specifically ruled it unconstitutional, finding it to violate the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, and upheld a nationwide ban on its implementation. This means that despite the administration’s aggressive enforcement stance, nationwide injunctions remained in effect against the birthright citizenship ban, preventing its implementation. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized that the president “cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen” or “strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country”.

Think of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration as a massive, multi-pronged effort to build a stricter fence around the country and patrol it more aggressively. This effort involved not just increasing the number of guards and resources at the border, but also trying to change the fundamental rules about who could be considered a citizen once inside, and expanding the reach of enforcement into communities. However, the courts acted as constitutional gatekeepers, constantly checking the blueprints and construction methods against the original building codes (the Constitution), sometimes allowing parts of the fence to go up, but often blocking attempts to change the fundamental rules or to use methods deemed unconstitutional.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!