Trump-Appointed Judge Says No Emergency & Bats for Judicial Integrity Over Speed
February 19, 2025, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a lower court’s injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. The order to redefine citizenship under the 14th Amendment is still on hold.
Summary of the Ruling
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an appellate court, ruled against former President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizen parents. The court upheld the injunction blocking the order saying the federal government failed to show likelihood of success.
Key Points from the Ruling
- No Emergency Justifies Emergency Relief: Judge Forrest said the government’s inability to implement a policy is not an emergency. She emphasized that even an important controversy does not justify emergency relief.
- Precedent Goes Against the Administration: The court cited Supreme Court decisions from 1898 that affirm birthright citizenship.
- Judicial Independence and Public Trust: Forrest warned that fast decisions in high profile cases erode public trust in the judiciary.
- Constitutional Questions Remain Unanswered: The ruling denied emergency relief but didn’t settle the bigger constitutional question of birthright citizenship.
Background on the Executive Order
President Trump signed one of his executive orders, Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” on January 20, 2025. The order would deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. This interpretation challenges the traditional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause which grants citizenship to all persons born on US soil.
Judges’ Opinions and Legal Ramifications
Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee, agreed with the decision and said the government’s justification for emergency relief was weak. She pointed out that just because the lower court impedes Executive Branch policy doesn’t qualify as an emergency. Judge Forrest wrote a concurring opinion supporting the panel’s decision to uphold the lower court’s injunction against President Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship. Judge Forrest wrote the opinion for a three judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explaining why they denied the government’s emergency request to enforce Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. She noted the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary by not rushing through decisions in politicized cases.
Judge John Coughenour who ruled against Trump before the appeal said the order violates the 14th Amendment and US immigration laws.
Breakdown
The Government’s Emergency Argument
The Trump administration asked for an emergency ruling to enforce its executive order to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the US. The administration argued that immediate action was needed to stop the application of existing birthright citizenship laws.
Why the Court Said No
The panel comprising Judges William Canby (Jimmy Carter appointee) and Milan Smith (George W. Bush appointee) found the government failed to show likelihood of success in its appeal. Judge Forrest explained:
“Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make.”
In other words, just because a policy is controversial or political doesn’t mean it’s an emergency requiring fast track judicial intervention.
Key Rulings and Developments
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s request to lift the lower court injunction blocking the birthright citizenship ban.
- Executive Order, issued in January 2025, would deny U.S. citizenship to children born to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- Washington, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois and two undocumented pregnant women sued.
- The three judge panel consisted of judges appointed by Trump, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter and found the administration did not show likelihood of success.
- Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee, said while the issue is controversial it doesn’t meet the criteria for an emergency.
Judge Coughenour’s Stern Rebuke* U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who ruled against the order, called it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
- He noted that the 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, has always granted citizenship to all persons born in the US.
- His ruling was one of four preliminary injunctions against the executive order, so even if one is overturned, others would still block the order.
Government’s Argument and Why It Failed
- The Justice Department argued the order is to curb illegal immigration by removing incentives for non-citizens to have children in the US.
- Attorneys claimed states challenging the order would not suffer direct harm, that restricting birthright citizenship would not have immediate financial consequences.
- Washington state officials countered that the order could result in loss of federal funding for state services as states determine eligibility based on citizenship.
- Lane Polozola, representing Washington’s Attorney General’s Office, said lifting the injunction would have severe consequences including loss of federal jurisdiction over residents and state funded programs.
What’s Next? Supreme Court Review Expected
- With the 9th Circuit ruling against Trump’s order, the case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
- Given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, legal experts are split on whether the ruling will be upheld or overturned.
- The outcome will set a precedent for future interpretations of birthright citizenship and executive power in immigration law.
Public Opinion and Broader Impacts
Polls show most Americans oppose changing birthright citizenship laws as proposed by President Donald Trump’s executive order.
A Pew Research Center survey found 59% of Americans want to keep birthright citizenship as is, 36% want to restrict it.
If upheld Trump’s order could create millions of stateless individuals affecting families and communities.
It could also impact diplomatic relations with countries that send a high number of immigrants to the US.
Related Legal Precedents
Judge Forrest cited the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This precedent has been established for over 100 years, making the Trump administration’s argument a significant challenge.
Birthright Citizenship Background
Birthright citizenship in the US is based on the Fourteenth Amendment which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Historical Precedent: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
- The 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that birthright citizenship applies regardless of parents’ immigration status.
- This has been the law for over 125 years.
Trump’s executive order challenged this precedent by denying citizenship to children born in the US to non-citizen or undocumented parents.
Legal and Political Consequences
Rejection of the order could lead to a Supreme Court showdown. Other courts, including Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have also blocked the order. If the Supreme Court takes the case it could reaffirm or redefine birthright citizenship in modern America.
Can the Supreme Court Overturn Longstanding Precedent?
The Supreme Court has overturned long established precedents including:
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) – Overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated federal abortion protections.
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) – Overturned Chevron deference and gave federal agencies less power in regulatory matters.
If the Court takes the birthright citizenship case it could reshape US immigration policy in a way not seen in over a century.
What’s Next?
The Trump administration or its allies may seek a Supreme Court appeal. If granted the ruling could have big impacts on:
- Children of undocumented immigrants.
- Legal permanent residents.
- US born children with non-citizen parents.
Until then birthright citizenship remains in place.What’s Next?
- More Litigation: The ruling denies emergency relief but the broader birthright citizenship debate is far from over.
- Supreme Court?: The issue may eventually get to the Supreme Court.
- More Legal Battles: Given the administration’s track record more immigration policy lawsuits are expected.
FAQ
1. What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the principle that grants citizenship to individuals born within a country’s territory regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of their parents. In the US it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
2. What was President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship?
On January 20, 2025 President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160 titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order aimed to end the automatic grant of citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or who are here on a temporary but lawful basis, such as students or tourists.
3. Why was the executive order challenged in court?
The executive order was challenged on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs, including several states and civil rights organizations, argued that the order contradicts the clear language of the 14th Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, namely the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark which held that children born in the US to foreign parents are citizens by birthright.
4. What was the basis of the district court’s injunction?
US District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” He said the order conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and over a century of legal precedent on birthright citizenship.5. What did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decide about the injunction?
On February 19, 2025 a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request to lift the injunction and allow the executive order to go into effect. The majority opinion said the administration had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and therefore the injunction should continue.
6. Does this mean the executive order is invalid forever?
No, the ruling maintains the injunction and blocks enforcement of the executive order while the lawsuits proceed. The case could ultimately end up in the US Supreme Court which would be the final say on the order’s constitutionality.
7. What does this mean for children born in the US to non-citizen parents?
As a result of the injunction the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is still in effect. Children born on U.S. soil still acquire U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
8. What would happen if the executive order were to be upheld?
If the executive order were upheld it would be a major change in U.S. citizenship policy. Children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents would no longer automatically be citizens. This could result in a large number of stateless individuals and complex legal and social issues.
9. How does U.S. birthright citizenship compare to other countries?
The U.S. has unrestricted jus soli, granting citizenship to anyone born on its soil. About 30 countries, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, have similar policies. Most countries either restrict birthright citizenship or have jus sanguinis where citizenship is determined by parentage.
10. What are the main arguments for the executive order?
Supporters of the executive order argue the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not meant to grant citizenship to children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. They say the current interpretation encourages illegal immigration and the executive order would align citizenship policy with the original intent of the Constitution.11. What are the main arguments against the executive order?
Opponents say the 14th Amendment’s language clearly grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, period. They argue the executive order is unconstitutional, contradicts long-standing legal precedent and could create a class of stateless individuals with serious legal and humanitarian implications.
12. Has the U.S. government tried to change birthright citizenship before?
Yes, there have been legislative attempts to alter birthright citizenship like the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009” and similar bills in Congress. None have passed.
13. What’s the significance of United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a landmark decision that established birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents is a U.S. citizen, a precedent that has been followed for over a century.
14. Could Congress change birthright citizenship?
Congress can propose legislation but any law to change birthright citizenship would likely face major constitutional challenges. Changing this principle would probably require a constitutional amendment, a long and difficult process.
15. What’s next for the executive order?
CONCLUSION
The legal battle continues and the future of birthright citizenship in the U.S. is uncertain. The Supreme Court’s final decision will decide the country’s immigration policy for generations to come.
Now the case will go back to a full hearing before the 9th Circuit. The Trump administration can also petition the Supreme Court to review the case. The process will continue with implications for the 14th Amendment.
Related Resources:
- Full 9th Circuit Ruling on Birthright Citizenship
- Understanding the 14th Amendment
- Historical Cases on Birthright Citizenship
Resources for Further Reading
Recent Supreme Court Rulings Impacting Precedent
Additional Resources
- Full Text of Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
- Pew Research Center Survey on Birthright Citizenship: Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship draws more disapproval than approval
- Historical Analysis of the 14th Amendment: The little-known Gullah Geechee politician who pushed for the 14th amendment
Resources and Further Reading
- Full Text of the 14th Amendment: Click here
- Recent Court Rulings on Immigration Policy: Click here
Related:
