FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNCONSTITUTIONAL
In a landmark decision with major implications for immigration and constitutional law in the United States, a federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The court determined that the order, which attempted to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants, directly violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling comes after years of legal battles sparked by Trump’s controversial 2018 executive order, which was never fully enforced due to immediate legal challenges. The core of the issue lies in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” For over a century, this clause has been understood to grant birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of the parents.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Trump’s executive order exceeded presidential authority and violated constitutional protections. The majority opinion emphasized that the president does not have unilateral power to alter constitutional rights through executive action. The court reaffirmed that the Constitution—not executive orders—defines citizenship, and that the 14th Amendment remains a cornerstone of equal protection under U.S. law.
Civil rights groups, immigration advocates, and legal scholars welcomed the decision, calling it a major victory for constitutional integrity and immigrant rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was one of the organizations that challenged the order, said the ruling sends a clear message: “No president is above the Constitution, and birthright citizenship is a fundamental principle that cannot be undone by executive decree.”
Opponents of the ruling, including some conservative legal commentators and Republican lawmakers, criticized the court’s interpretation, arguing that the original intent of the 14th Amendment did not include the children of undocumented immigrants. However, the court dismissed this argument, citing long-standing precedent dating back to the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign parents.
This ruling effectively puts an end to the Trump-era proposal to curtail birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment—an endeavor widely seen as politically motivated and legally dubious. It also underscores the limits of executive power, especially when it comes to altering constitutional rights.
While the case could potentially be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, many legal analysts believe it is unlikely the high court would overturn more than a century of precedent. For now, the decision is being hailed as a reaffirmation of the U.S. Constitution’s protection for those born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The ruling serves as a major judicial rebuke of Trump-era immigration policies and reasserts the enduring power of the Constitution in defining who is—and who is not—a citizen of the United States.