Login to Continue Learning
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Ronald M. Gould—a Clinton appointee—and joined by a partial dissent from Patrick J. Bumatay, a first-term Trump appointee, confirmed this decision.
“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional,” the ruling stated.
Gould argued that the administration’s defense relied on “a network of inferences unmoored from the accepted legal principles established when the 14th Amendment was ratified.”
Bumatay’s dissent emphasized the need for judges to adhere strictly to their judicial powers and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limited the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies.
The lawsuit was filed by states including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon in response to Trump’s day-one executive order on birthright citizenship.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown stated, “The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with a pen stroke. He cannot strip away the rights, liberties, and protections of children born in our country.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed, “We’re proud to stand with the other states in this fight and will continue to defend the rights of every Oregonian, regardless of how or where their story begins.”
USA TODAY has reached out to other attorneys general and the White House for comments.
This ruling follows a July 10 decision by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante that barred enforcement of Trump’s order after immigrant rights advocates filed a class action lawsuit following the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA, Inc., ruling.
📚 Reading Comprehension Quiz
Which of the following best describes the decision confirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding birthright citizenship?
Please login or register to take the quiz and earn points!
