Donald Trump Handed New Legal Loss Over Birthright Citizenship Order

President Donald Trump’s administration was dealt a new legal loss by a federal appeals court over his executive order regarding birthright citizenship on Wednesday.

Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment.

Why It Matters

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit marked a significant setback for President Trump’s efforts to redefine U.S. citizenship rules. Trump’s executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.

Wednesday’s decision from the appeals court reinforced the 14th Amendment’s longstanding interpretation making birthright citizenship accessible to nearly all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status.

What To Know

The appeals court ruled on Wednesday that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional and upheld a lower-court decision that blocked its nationwide enforcement.

Judge Ronald Gould, writing the opinion for the court, said Trump’s executive order “contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship.”

The ruling added: “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.”

Wednesday’s ruling was 2-1, with two judges appointed by President Bill Clinton forming the majority, while one judge appointed by Trump dissented.

In an executive order posted on the day Trump was inaugurated, the president said that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'”

What People Are Saying

Trump in his January executive order in part: “Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

The federal court’s ruling in part: “Article II of the Constitution establishes the scope of presidential powers … The President has the power to issue executive orders if they ‘stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,’ on matters that fall within that scope established by Article II … But one power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution.”

Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, on X on Wednesday: “Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists.”

Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, on X on Wednesday: “The Ninth Circuit affirms our nationwide injunction in birthright citizenship. The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen. He cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country. This lawsuit was the first case I brought as Attorney General, and I am proud that courts at every level agree with us. – NB”

What Happens Next

The Trump administration retains the option to appeal the decision, setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially rule on the constitutionality of President Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Legal experts and advocates anticipate that the dispute will likely resolve only through Supreme Court review, given the scale of the states and individuals affected.

Update 7/23/25 8:38 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.