In a major legal decision that reshapes the national debate on immigration and constitutional rights, a federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants is unconstitutional. This landmark ruling affirms that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to citizenship for all individuals born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
This article explains what happened, why it matters, and how this decision could influence U.S. law and immigration policy for years to come.
In October 2018, during the buildup to the midterm elections, then-President Donald Trump announced his intention to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. He argued that the United States was the only country that automatically grants citizenship to anyone born on its soil and claimed that this policy encourages illegal immigration and “anchor babies.”
Trump’s proposed order was never officially implemented, but it created a firestorm of controversy and set off a legal and political debate that continued throughout his presidency. Immigration advocates, legal scholars, and civil rights organizations immediately challenged the idea, calling it a violation of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, clearly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This clause has long been interpreted to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen—regardless of their parents’ legal status.
The principle of jus soli (“right of the soil”) is the foundation of American citizenship laws. For more than 150 years, the courts have upheld this interpretation, making any attempt to override it through executive action a serious constitutional issue.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case titled Doe v. United States, brought by immigrant rights groups and families potentially impacted by Trump’s proposed order.
The court ruled 2-1 that the executive branch cannot reinterpret or override the plain text of the Constitution, stating:
“No president has the authority to unilaterally strip away a constitutional right. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is clear, settled, and beyond executive override.”
The court emphasized that changing such a deeply rooted constitutional guarantee would require a constitutional amendment, not a presidential directive or executive order.
The ruling upholds the idea that the Constitution, not individual presidents, defines American rights. The 14th Amendment was written to ensure that all people born in the U.S. are treated equally, including former slaves and their children. Today, this protection applies broadly to all children born on American soil.
The decision makes it clear that any future president who attempts to bypass Congress and the Constitution to change who gets citizenship will face serious legal roadblocks. This could discourage future administrations from trying to use executive orders to alter fundamental rights.
By affirming the role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions, the court reinforces the principle of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy.
Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump strongly disagreed with the ruling. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he called the court “radical” and “unelected,” claiming that the decision was a “gift to illegal immigrants.”
He promised to challenge the ruling if he wins re-election in 2024, possibly by appointing more judges who share his views on immigration and executive power.
Organizations like the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, and American Immigration Council celebrated the decision.
“This ruling affirms that our Constitution is stronger than any one man’s agenda,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the NILC. “The court stood up for immigrant families, for children, and for the values that define our country.”
Many legal scholars saw the ruling as expected, given the well-established understanding of the 14th Amendment.
“This was a no-brainer,” said constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. “The president cannot change the Constitution by executive order. Period.”
The concept of birthright citizenship in the U.S. dates back to English common law and was codified with the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.
One of the most important cases related to this issue was United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, who were not citizens, was still a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
That decision has served as a legal precedent for more than a century, confirming that children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ status.
Legally, yes—but only through a constitutional amendment, not through executive orders or simple legislation.
To change the 14th Amendment, the U.S. would need:
Given how divided the country is on immigration, such a change is highly unlikely in the near future.
The court’s decision is likely to become a talking point in the 2024 presidential race. Immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, and birthright citizenship touches on both immigration enforcement and civil rights.
Republicans may use the ruling to criticize what they call “judicial activism,” while Democrats may see it as proof that Trump’s policies go against American constitutional values.
Either way, this ruling reminds voters of the long-term consequences of presidential actions—especially when it comes to appointing federal judges.
For immigrant families living in the U.S., the ruling offers relief and security. Children born in the country remain protected citizens, eligible for all rights, benefits, and responsibilities that come with citizenship.
This means:
For many families, this ruling eliminates a deep source of fear—that their American-born children could someday be stripped of their citizenship rights.
Here’s a quick summary of what you need to know:
While Trump’s legal team may consider appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the existing precedent strongly supports the 14th Amendment’s interpretation. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the appeals court decision will stand as the final word on the matter.
For now, this ruling is a significant victory for constitutional rights, immigrant communities, and the rule of law in America.
The federal appeals court’s decision to strike down Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is more than a legal ruling—it’s a reaffirmation of American values. It sends a clear message: No president, no matter how powerful, can unilaterally redefine what it means to be an American.
In a time of political division and rising tensions over immigration, this decision restores faith in the Constitution’s enduring power to protect the rights of all people born in the United States.
Read Next – Trump Withdraws from UNESCO Again, Labeling It a ‘Woke’ Program
America forgotten ghost towns are a unique glimpse into the past. Once full of life,…
NH lake named one of the best in the U.S. for swimming by Reader’s Digest…
Looking for a peaceful escape surrounded by nature? The best hidden gardens and arboretums in…
San Francisco is a food lover’s paradise. With famous eateries like Tartine Bakery, Swan Oyster…
Small historic towns are often overlooked in favor of big cities, but they offer something…
Colorado is a hiker’s dream. From towering mountain peaks to quiet alpine lakes, this state…