US appeals court declares Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

The decision by a three-judge panel from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a previous nationwide injunction by a lower court, reinforcing the legal setback for Trump's controversial immigration directive.

This latest ruling follows a similar block by a federal judge in New Hampshire and marks the first time an appellate court has reviewed the matter. It moves the legal battle one step closer to potentially reaching the US Supreme Court.

The executive order in question sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the US if their parents were in the country illegally or on a temporary basis. However, the appeals court agreed with US District Judge John C. Coughenour of Seattle, who had initially halted the order and criticised the Trump administration for attempting to sidestep constitutional protections for political purposes.

"The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the majority opinion stated.

Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, supported the ruling and upheld the universal injunction, emphasising the need for consistent citizenship laws across all states. “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” they wrote.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump, dissented, arguing that the states lacked the legal standing to sue. “We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of ‘complete relief’ isn’t a backdoor to universal injunctions,” he wrote. Notably, Bumatay did not express a view on the constitutionality of the order itself.

The case was brought forward by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. They contended that inconsistent citizenship rules would create significant legal and administrative confusion, especially in matters of state governance.

The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause states that all individuals born or naturalised in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argued that this clause does not apply to all births on US soil, especially if the parents lack legal status. However, the states and the court referred to a landmark 1898 Supreme Court case that affirmed the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants based solely on birthplace.

The White House and the Department of Justice have not yet issued a response to the ruling. At least nine lawsuits challenging the executive order have been filed nationwide, making this a pivotal moment in the broader legal debate over immigration and constitutional rights in the United States.