Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

THE NEWS

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s emergency request to reinstate former President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are illegals or hold temporary legal status.

The court’s decision leaves the policy blocked nationwide, teeing up a likely emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

January 20, 2025 – Executive Order Signed

• President Trump, on the day of his second inauguration, issues an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

• The directive instructs U.S. agencies to deny birthright citizenship to children born after February 19, 2025, if neither parent holds U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence.

January 21, 2025 – Legal Challenges Emerge

• A coalition of 22 Democratic-led states files lawsuits in federal courts in Boston (Massachusetts) and Seattle (Washington), arguing that Trump’s order violates the U.S. Constitution.

• Simultaneously, the ACLU and other civil rights groups bring separate suits, including one in New Hampshire, on behalf of immigrant advocacy organizations and pregnant women nearing delivery.

January 23, 2025 – First Court Ruling (Seattle)

• U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the order nationwide for 14 days.

• Citing “blatantly unconstitutional” overreach, Judge Coughenour emphasizes no president can unilaterally rescind constitutional rights.

February 5, 2025 – Second Major Injunction (Maryland)

• Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland grants a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of Trump’s policy nationwide beyond the initial 14-day period.

• She reaffirms that virtually all infants born on U.S. soil remain U.S. citizens from birth.

February 6, 2025 – TRO Becomes Permanent (Seattle)

• Judge Coughenour converts his temporary order into a preliminary injunction, extending the block on Trump’s directive indefinitely.

• The Justice Department immediately appeals the Seattle injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

February 10, 2025 – Third Injunction (New Hampshire)

• Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire issues his own preliminary injunction against the executive order.

• The ACLU-led lawsuit successfully argues the policy violates the Constitution, joining Washington and Maryland in blocking the measure.

February 13, 2025 – Fourth Federal Judge Weighs In (Massachusetts)

• U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Massachusetts deems the birthright citizenship order unconstitutional, issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction.

• Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell hails the ruling, declaring the president cannot “rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.”

• By this point, the Justice Department had already launched appeals in the Washington and Maryland cases.

February 19, 2025 – Ninth Circuit Denies Revival

• A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit unanimously rejects the Trump administration’s emergency bid to reinstate the order, finding the government failed to demonstrate a “strong showing” of likely success on the merits.

• This ruling preserves Judge Coughenour’s injunction, meaning Trump’s birthright citizenship restriction remains frozen.

• The Ninth Circuit sets an expedited briefing schedule for full appellate arguments in June 2025, ensuring continued judicial scrutiny.

REACTIONS

Ninth Circuit Panel (Majority Ruling): Judges William Canby (Carter appointee) and Milan Smith (Bush appointee) joined in denying the administration’s request, concluding the DOJ did not meet the high standard for emergency relief.

Judge Danielle Forrest (Trump Appointee, Concurring Opinion): Emphasizes that while the controversy is significant, it does not inherently constitute an “emergency” warranting extraordinary judicial intervention. Urges courts to avoid making high-stakes decisions in haste, warning that it can undermine public trust in the judiciary.

Trump Administration (DOJ): Has not publicly commented yet on the panel’s ruling but could seek rapid review from the Supreme Court, given the Court’s conservative majority and the high-profile nature of the issue.

WHAT'S NEXT

The Trump administration’s next move could be to petition the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions