Trump’s Citizenship Crackdown Collapses in Court

President Donald Trump’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship has encountered a significant legal setback.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that the controversial executive order is unconstitutional, echoing earlier decisions from other courts.

A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district court ruling from New Hampshire that had already blocked the order.

The appellate court stated that the lower court had made the correct call in striking down the measure, which sought to deny U.S. citizenship to individuals born on American soil under certain conditions.

“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,” the appellate judges wrote in their opinion.

This ruling moves the case one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is expected to face intense scrutiny and possibly set a pivotal legal precedent.

The executive order at the center of the controversy was signed by Trump on January 20, shortly after he returned to office.

It immediately drew widespread legal challenges, with courts across the country filing injunctions within weeks to halt its implementation.

The core legal principle under debate is birthright citizenship, the constitutional guarantee that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil automatically receive U.S. citizenship.

While the Trump administration escalated the issue to the Supreme Court, the justices refrained from addressing the central legal question.

Instead, they ruled that several lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing broad injunctions, subtly reshaping how such nationwide rulings can be issued.

However, the high court did not weigh in on whether denying birthright citizenship itself would be lawful.

This left an opening for opponents of the order to pivot their legal strategy.

In a notable ruling, Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire classified all newborns in the United States as a legally affected group, enabling a class-action lawsuit.

He argued that stripping these individuals of automatic citizenship would inflict “irreparable harm.”

The idea of birthright citizenship has deep constitutional roots.

It is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which denied citizenship to African Americans.

The principle was reinforced in 1898 by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It upheld the citizenship of a man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents despite the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Although Indigenous Americans were initially excluded from this right, they were granted birthright citizenship with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Efforts to roll back birthright citizenship have long circulated among conservative circles, surfacing intermittently in Congress since 1991.

However, Trump’s executive order marked the most aggressive and mainstream push yet to challenge the constitutional guarantee.

Critics argue that the order not only defies the Constitution but also undermines the principles of equality and due process.

Legal scholars and civil rights organizations have condemned the effort, warning that its implementation would create a stateless underclass and legal chaos for millions.

Despite the legal defeats, the Trump administration has not yet issued a public response to the appellate court’s ruling.

The lack of comment leaves open questions about whether the administration will seek to fast-track the appeal to the Supreme Court or abandon the effort altogether.

In the meantime, legal experts anticipate that the case will continue to serve as a constitutional flashpoint.

With political and ideological tensions running high, the debate over birthright citizenship is poised to remain a major issue in future elections and judicial appointments.

The 9th Circuit’s decision is a strong affirmation of a long-standing constitutional protection, but whether it will withstand the Supreme Court’s final judgment remains to be seen.

Until then, the future of birthright citizenship in the United States remains uncertain, but, for now, firmly intact.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook