A Landmark Court Ruling Reinforces the Constitutional Safeguard of Birthright Citizenship and Challenges Presidential Power

24 July 2025

A demonstration for birthright citizenship outside the supreme court in Washington in May. A federal appeals court has ruled against the Trump administration’s bid to repeal the right. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

In a momentous turn of events for America’s constitutional landscape, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco delivered a decisive judgment on July 24, 2025, declaring former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship to be unconstitutional. This executive order, known formally as Executive Order 14160 and issued on January 20, 2025, sought to redefine the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to the children of nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.

By targeting children of undocumented immigrants and those here on temporary visas, the order represented one of the boldest presidential efforts in modern times to challenge a fundamental constitutional provision. The appellate court’s ruling was unanimous in rejecting this attempt, with a 2–1 majority siding with Democratic-led state governments and civil rights groups that implored the judiciary to defend this 150‑year‑old principle.

The court’s opinion emphasized that the executive branch cannot unilaterally redefine what it means to be American by the stroke of a pen. The three-judge panel affirmed a preliminary injunction that had originated in the District Court of New Hampshire, where Judge Joseph Laplante certified a class action composed of children both born and unborn who would be directly impacted by the president’s directive.

That injunction served to block enforcement not just locally but across the entire nation, reasoning that a narrower scope would fail to offer full legal and administrative relief to states such as Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The ruling also cited the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which had reaffirmed the principle that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status and noted that executive orders cannot override constitutional guarantees.

This decision arrives in the wake of an earlier Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2025, which limited the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court explicitly left open the avenue for plaintiffs to seek expansive class-based relief, a path that the Ninth Circuit has now validated. The appellate court found that the states involved needed comprehensive relief due to the logistical challenge of tracking the children who might be rendered noncitizens under the contested policy. Judges Ronald Gould and Michael Hawkins authored the majority opinion, while Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented, questioning whether the states had legal standing to bring the case but he did not dispute the constitutionality aspect.

The broader legal framework is firmly rooted in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. This clause was enacted to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals, and was subsequently reinforced by the Wong Kim Ark decision, solidifying American jurisprudence around jus soli citizenship by birthplace.

Presidents since have not previously attempted to rescind these principles through executive means, rendering this case both unique and contentious. Indeed, disputes about birthright citizenship stretch back decades, often surfacing in conservative political circles and occasionally in legislative proposals, but they have never reached this level of presidential assertion until now.

The ruling not only delivers a legal rebuke but also sets the stage for a high-stakes Supreme Court showdown. Once again, the judicial branch will be called upon to decide whether the limits of constitutional interpretation guarded for more than a century can be altered by executive order. The arguments promise to center on the plain text of the 14th Amendment, long-standing rulings such as Wong Kim Ark, the federal government's power, and the extent to which the judiciary can enjoin national policies.

For supporters of birthright citizenship, this decision reaffirms the belief that the nation’s core values are not at the mercy of political whims. Immigrant advocates celebrated the ruling, describing it as essential to preserving the rights of generations born in the United States. However, opponents argue that this intrudes upon executive authority and undermines national sovereignty, claiming that Congress holds the power to pass legislation altering these conditions. The unfolding debate now shifts to the political realm, where lawmakers and activists may pursue either legislative or constitutional avenues.

The stakes are personal for many families who had feared the prospect of statelessness. According to court filings, roughly 150,000 children born each year to undocumented or temporary-status parents could have been stripped of citizenship if the executive order took effect. Nationwide, this impact would have had wide-reaching effects on schooling, healthcare, legal status, and civil rights.

With the Ninth Circuit’s decisive stance, birthright citizenship remains legally protected for now. The constitutional principle that those born on American soil are citizens stands firm against unilateral attempts at reversal. Still, the fight is far from over. Even as courts reaffirm legal boundaries, Congress may feel renewed urgency to amend statutory language, and the political discourse is likely to intensify. President Trump’s administration has yet to issue an official response to the ruling. The legal journey will continue upward and outward, as both sides prepare for what promises to be a landmark confrontation before the nation’s highest court.