Trump birthright citizenship order blocked by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a decision from a lower court that blocked the enforcement of the EO that would deny citizenship rights to people born to parents who are in the US illegally, or if they were born in the US when their parents were temporarily on US soil, per Fox News.

The three judges on the panel ruled against Trump's order 2 to 1. The majority decision wrote, "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."

An execuitve order that Trump signed when he got into office stated, "It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s 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 was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."

Although the Supreme Court has ruled against universal injunctions placed on actions from the president, the 9th Circuit ruled that under the carveout for class-action legal cases, the court was able to rule against the EO. The ACLU filed the class-action lawsuit against the administration.

"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief," Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould wrote. Both were appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented in the opinion, but did not weigh in on the Constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.