Federal Appeals Court Declares TrumpS Birthright Citizenship Order Unconstitutional
San Francisco, CA – A important legal blow was dealt to President Trump‘s controversial executive order targeting birthright citizenship, as a federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled the policy unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated that the order “contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'”
This decision marks the first time an appellate court has directly addressed the merits of the Trump administration’s attempt to alter birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants via executive action. The policy,which has been the subject of extensive legal challenges,remains on hold.
the executive order, signed on the first day of Trump’s second term, aimed to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to individuals born in the United states if one parent was undocumented and the other was not a citizen or green-card holder,or if both parents were in the U.S. on temporary visas. It directed federal agencies to cease issuing citizenship documents to those falling into these categories within 30 days.
Legal experts widely contend that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, unequivocally grants citizenship to virtually all individuals born within the U.S., irrespective of their parents’ immigration status, wiht only extremely limited exceptions.
The Trump administration’s argument centered on the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asserting that parents in the country illegally or temporarily do not owe “allegiance” to the U.S. and are therefore not fully “subject to the jurisdiction.”
However, the 9th Circuit panel disagreed, concluding that a straightforward reading of the 14th Amendment indicates citizenship was intended for anyone subject to U.S. laws and authority. The judges criticized the administration’s interpretation as relying on “inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868” and suggested the order was an attempt to circumvent constitutional limitations.
The case reached the 9th Circuit after a lower court in Washington state issued a preliminary injunction blocking
