A United States federal appeals court has ruled against the Donald Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for certain children of immigrants, a decision that could push the contentious issue toward the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency request from the Justice Department to lift a block imposed by a Seattle judge, who had halted the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on constitutional grounds.
The three-judge panel, which includes appointees from Trump, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, indicated that a thorough review of the case will proceed, with oral arguments scheduled for June.
This lawsuit, currently before the San Francisco-based appeals court, is among several major legal battles challenging the policy and marks the first time an appellate panel has weighed in on the matter.
According to court filings, the Justice Department described the executive order on birthright citizenship as “an integral part of President Trump’s broader effort to repair the United States’ immigration system and to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”
For over a century, birthright citizenship has been granted under an 1868 constitutional amendment and an earlier statute, ensuring that anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Trump’s policy seeks to exclude children whose parents are either undocumented or in the country on temporary visas.
The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general from four states, led by Washington, who challenged the administration’s argument that the case falls under presidential immigration powers.
“This is not a case about ‘immigration,’” they wrote in their filings. “It is about citizenship rights that the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute intentionally and explicitly place beyond the President’s authority to condition or deny.”
The majority of the 9th Circuit panel found that the Trump administration had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in its emergency request.
Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee, clarified in a concurring opinion that her decision was not based on the legal merits of the case but rather on the lack of an urgent need for the court’s immediate intervention.
“Deciding important substantive issues on one week’s notice turns our usual decision-making process on its head,” she wrote. “We should not undertake this task unless the circumstances dictate that we must. They do not here.”
