Appeals court blocks Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Executive order blocked

A federal appeals court ruled President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's nationwide block.

At odds with SCOTUS

The ruling contradicts a Supreme Court decision that said lower courts could not issue a nationwide injunction over the matter, saying all states would "suffer the same irreparable harms" otherwise.

The fight's not over

The 9th Circuit Court's decision does not end the legal battle. The Trump administration can ask the full 9th Circuit Court to review the case or appeal straight to the Supreme Court.


A second court has dealt a major legal blow to one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders. The 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday, July 23, that the executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower court’s nationwide block.

The executive order would have denied citizenship to babies born in the U.S. if their parents were here illegally or temporarily, such as those on tourist or student visas.

What did the court say?

The argument centered on the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the Justice Department argued gives the Trump administration leeway to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants, as well as babies born to mothers who are in the country legally but temporarily if the baby’s father is not a citizen.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™

Point phone camera here

In its opinion, the court found the executive order “contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment’s granting of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'”

What led up to this?

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that three federal district judges overreached their authority when they issued nationwide injunctions against the executive order.

In doing so, the justices limited the lower court rulings to only block Trump’s order as applied to the states and plaintiffs that brought lawsuits over it. However, they left open the pathway to a nationwide injunction if individuals file class-action lawsuits.

“The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief,” appeals court Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority. “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief.”

He added, “The states would suffer the same irreparable harms under a geographically-limited injunction as they would without an injunction.”

What comes next?

The 9th Circuit Court’s decision does not end the legal fight.

The Trump administration can ask the full 9th Circuit Court to review the case. It could also appeal straight to the Supreme Court.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

The court's ruling on the executive order concerning birthright citizenship influences national immigration policy and legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Birthright citizenship

This decision directly concerns the constitutional principle granting citizenship to those born in the United States.

Judicial limits on executive power

The ruling demonstrates the judiciary's role in checking executive actions, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake.

Nationwide injunctions

The case addresses when and how universal or nationwide injunctions can be applied by the courts, impacting how federal policies are implemented and challenged.

Get the big picture

Context corner

Birthright citizenship is anchored in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1868, it was intended to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark reinforced this rule that people born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ status.

Debunking

Claims that the U.S. is alone in granting birthright citizenship have been widely circulated. However, numerous countries in the Americas, including Canada and most of Latin America, have similar policies granting citizenship to those born on their soil.

Global impact

The U.S. birthright citizenship policy has long influenced international migration decisions. Any changes could impact not only mixed-status families domestically, but also global perceptions of American citizenship and immigrant rights. Policy shifts in the U.S. tend to influence debates about citizenship and immigration in other countries with similar legal traditions.

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame the appeals court ruling as a critical defense of immigrant civil rights, emphasizing the executive order’s “catastrophic” humanitarian impact and describing President Donald Trump’s action as a politically motivated effort attacking constitutional protections.
  • Not enough unique coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right highlight concerns over “birth tourism” abuses and asserts a narrower, originalist reading of the 14th Amendment, stressing “judicial restraint” and questioning states’ legal standing, often portraying the injunction as an overreach limiting lawful immigration control.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

306 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • A federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and upheld a nationwide injunction against it.
  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump’s order contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all born in the United States.
  • The ruling maintains that states need a nationwide block to prevent confusion and harm caused by differing citizenship rules in various states.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • A federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower-court decision blocking Trump's order nationwide.
  • The court reinforced that nearly all individuals born in the U.S. have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, blocking its enforcement nationwide.
  • The court confirmed that the executive order contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
  • Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, arguing that the states lacked standing to sue over the executive order.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™