The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court injunction blocking former President Donald J. Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or in the country on temporary visas.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Executive Order No. 14160—issued on January 20 2025—conflicts with both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Majority opinion author Judge Ronald M. Gould, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, held that the order “contradicts the plain language” of the Constitution and would cause “irreparable harm” to states that rely on federal reimbursements tied to the citizenship status of newborns. Judge Patrick J. Bumatay concurred in part but dissented from the majority’s standing analysis, arguing the states lacked jurisdiction to sue.
Titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” EO 14160 declared that children born in the United States would not automatically gain citizenship if their mothers were undocumented or lawfully present only temporarily and their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
Four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—joined two individual expectant mothers in challenging the order; the states alleged massive fiscal and administrative burdens if the policy took effect.
On February 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a universal preliminary injunction, finding the order likely unconstitutional and leaving it unenforceable nationwide.
The majority opinion focused on the Amendment’s opening sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. Judge Gould wrote that Supreme Court precedent, chiefly United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)—has consistently interpreted this language to guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status.
Government lawyers argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” should be read as requiring a child’s “primary allegiance” to the United States, thereby excluding the U.S.-born children of temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants. The court dismissed this view as “unmoored” from both constitutional text and history, noting that only children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and certain tribal affiliations have ever been excluded from birthright citizenship.
The court also held that EO 14160 violates 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment by defining citizens as those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Because Congress explicitly adopted the Amendment’s wording, any executive measure contradicting that statutory definition oversteps presidential authority.
The Department of Justice can, and likely will, petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision. The preliminary injunction remains in effect, meaning children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas are still entitled to citizenship at birth—nothing changes for their status right now. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the injunction will stay in place until the high court decides otherwise.
