BREAKING: Appeals Court Says Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Unconstitutional

Gateway Pundit ^ | July 23, 2025 | Cristina Laila

[Macho MAGA Man]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction against Trump’s order.

The three-judge panel included: Majority: Judge Gould (Clinton), Judge Hawkins (Clinton) – Dissent: Judge Bumatay (Trump).

“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 majority wrote.

[AndyTheBear]

Oh its just the 9th circuit...was afraid it was a real court...

[Bob434]

[[“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 majority wrote]]

Might as well say:

Too many people rob banks for a living, therefore it is the decision of the court that robbing banks is not a crime.

Too many prostitutes walk the streets, denying freedom to many prostitutes is unconstitutional, we fully agree, so says the courts.

Too many rapists violate the rights of others, therefore rape is no longer a crime

It should NOT BE LEGAL to break into our nation and have a baby on our soil! Just because millions do so does NOT mean we have to tolerate it.

[chiller]

The Supreme court has shown some common sense lately, and as we are the only country on Earth allowing birthright citizenship...they will again.

[Persevero]

Any opinions on this from your Zen Master?

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HISTORY

The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, tells us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

“I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,” Senator Howard wrote.

He continued, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

[lastchance]

It would be better if the Constitution was amended to make it clear that the children of illegal entrants do not come under the phrase “Under the jurisdiction of..”.

[Sacajaweau]

It couldn’t be clearer...If you’re born here or naturalized, you are a citizen. And as such...(you BECOME)....subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[Sacajaweau]

It was....but it has substantially changed.

[Sacajaweau]

When you are born here or naturalized...(you become) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

When you are naturalized, you take an oath. Born here....is automatic by your presence in this country.

[Spacetrucker]

Only issue I would have with that line is thus; it would require a Constitutional Convention, and THAT, my FRiend, is a very dangerous can of worms I am not certain we should open.

[Sacajaweau]

It would indeed take a Constitutional Amendment. And I agree...never go that path. Unexpected consequences.

Look at the "stuck on stupid" amendment...aka...Prohibition.

Look at the states playing with their constitutions with abortion.

And remember...it was illegal IN EVERY STATE at one point in time.

[Sacajaweau]

Not true....There are about 35 countries that allow unrestricted birthright citizenship.

[Sacajaweau]

450 was reduced to $175 million by the appeals court and I believe he put up the cash...

[nathanbedford]

Oh, how we need the genius of Justice Antonin Scalia!

Scalia knew that setting the ground rules at the beginning invariably determines how the case comes out at the end. Hence, his insistence on what has been called somewhat inaccurately called "original intent" as the fundamental ground rule of interpretation when the meaning of language is otherwise not clear.

The meaning "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is unclear from the words alone, and therefore, Scalia would look to find its meaning at the time the 14th amendment was ratified.

That method of decision-making, of course, is anathema to the left who have no intention of being restricted by the actual meaning of any Constitution. Rather, they want to be untrammeled in their perverse crusade to arrange the world according to their lights. They will not admit to a governing standard they cannot manipulate. Here is where the genius of Justice Scalia frustrates their ad hoc ambitions. So two leftist judges in the Ninth Circuit will simply not admit the legislative history of the 14th amendment, for to do so would confine them to a result they don't want. When for appearances sake they must at least acknowledge that legislative history exists, they will distort it to fit their preconceived judgment.

There are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, three for sure will not be bound by Scalia'S prescription of interpretation, two others are extremely doubtful, but we have reason to hope that four are aware that when we abandon Scalia we will become untethered to any reasonable notion of a Constitution.

We shall see.

[Sacajaweau]

He continued: That is what he proposed but only part of it became law....

[Sacajaweau]

The 9th circuit has undergone substantial changes.

[MikelTackNailer]

Scalia...heart attack or helped along? We'll probably never know.

Senator Tom Cotton's got a bill worked up that may settle this, the Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act, which will, if passed, amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify who receives birthright citizenship and who does not.

Leave the judges no room for partisan "interpretations" whatsoever.

[mbrfl]

Well said. Such a rational approach to deciding the important legal questions of the day has sadly gone out of style. But perhaps we’ll see it make a comeback in this case. We certainly need it.

But aside from the three activist judges, we have to contend with a chief justice who seems more guided by some ill-defined desire to preserve the reputation of the court (whatever that means) than by original intent. Still, there have been some pleasant surprises from this court (along with some disappointments). Hopefully this will be one of them.

[xzins]

No way that flying to the usa to have a baby is what is meant by the 14th amendment. That’s just ridiculous on its face.

[9YearLurker]

The 9th Circus, on brand.