(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday, 19, 2025, upheld an order blocking former President Donald Trump from restricting automatic birthright citizenship nationwide, a key aspect of his administration’s stringent immigration policies.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay on a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Seattle. The injunction prevents the enforcement of Trump’s executive order curtailing birthright citizenship.
This marks the first time an appellate court has reviewed Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, a matter that could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Similar rulings against the order have been issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, with appeals already in progress in two of those cases.
Background on Trump’s Order
Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20 upon his return to the White House, directed U.S. agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States after that date if neither of their parents was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling issued by Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who declared the policy unconstitutional. The administration argued that Coughenour overstepped by imposing a nationwide injunction at the request of four Democratic-led states.
However, a three-judge panel declined to grant the stay and instead scheduled oral arguments for June.
Judges’ Reasoning
U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, appointed by Trump during his first term, wrote in a concurring opinion that issuing a rapid ruling could undermine public trust in the judiciary, which must operate independently of ideology or political bias.
“Nor do the circumstances themselves demonstrate an obvious emergency where it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the Government has never been recognized by the judiciary,” Forrest stated.
The panel also included U.S. Circuit Judge William Canby, appointed by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, and U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush.
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Debate
The White House and the Justice Department have yet to respond to the ruling.
Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates, and other legal challengers argue that Trump’s executive order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Historically, this clause has been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
They cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of a child’s parents’ immigration status.
Judge Coughenour, appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, was the first to block Trump’s order. He initially issued a temporary restraining order on January 23, later converting it into an indefinite preliminary injunction.
In a lawsuit filed by the Democratic-led states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—along with several pregnant women—Coughenour described Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
During a February 6 hearing, Coughenour asserted that the administration sought to strip children born on U.S. soil of their fundamental right to citizenship by attempting to enact a constitutional amendment through an executive order.
Potential Impact
State attorneys general estimate that if implemented, Trump’s order would deny citizenship to over 150,000 children born in the United States each year.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case is expected to progress through the appellate courts, with a potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court in the future.
