9th Circuit upholds injunction against citizenship order, citing 14th Amendment

In a ruling divided along partisan lines, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Wednesday upheld a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, finding state plaintiffs had standing to challenge it.

But the panel dismissed individual claims in the case due to a related class action pending in New Hampshire federal court.

The decision is the first ruling by a federal appellate court on birthright citizenship.

The Trump administration vowed to appeal the panel decision, although a spokeswoman did not indicate if the U.S. Department of Justice planned to seek en banc review with the 9th Circuit or take its case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We look forward to being vindicated on appeal," said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, according to Reuters.

The 9th Circuit panel majority, comprised of two judges appointed by President Bill Clinton, affirmed an injunction by Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, on the grounds that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The opinion drew a sharp dissent from Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, an appointee of President Donald Trump, who criticized the majority for granting states broad standing based on "speculative" fiscal impacts.

"[B]ecause State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed in demonstrating that," the Executive Order is unconstitutional, we affirm the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction and its determination that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to give the States complete relief on their claims," Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote for the majority.

"We conclude that the States have shown that the loss of reimbursements, funding, and additional expenses incurred by the development of a new system to determine eligibility are concrete and imminent injuries-in-fact, traceable to the Executive Order, and redressable by an injunction," he added.

Gould based his opinion on executive branch practice for the past 125 years, and an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

He concluded that adopting the Trump administration's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause "relies on a network on inferences that are unmoored from accepted legal principles of 1868 [when the 14th Amendment was adopted] ... and because it is contrary to justice." State of Washington et al. v. Trump et al., 25-807 (9th Circ., filed Feb. 7, 2025).

Senior 9th Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins joined Gould's majority ruling in favor of the states of Washington, Oregon, Illinois and Arizona.

Bumatay partially dissented, agreeing only that the appellate court should not reach the individual plaintiffs' claims because of the pending nationwide class action. Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., 25-cv-00244 (D. N.H., filed June 27, 2025).

He wrote that the state plaintiffs lack standing and that their injuries are too contingent and dependent on their own future actions. 

"Merely by hypothesizing downstream fiscal effects, States could enjoy near-automatic access to federal court while other litigants face exacting hurdles," he wrote. "Such asymmetry threatens to convert States into de facto 'general-public-interest plaintiffs,' drawing Article III courts into political contests we were never meant to referee."

Bumatay cited the Supreme Court's ruling last month limiting nationwide injunctions that apply to the birthright citizenship case, among other litigation. Trump v. CASA Inc., 2025 DJDAR 5795 (S. Ct., filed March 13, 2025).

"Thus, we should approach any request for universal relief with good-faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions," he wrote. "Otherwise, CASA would be a mere drafting exercise rather than a binding precedent."

Bumatay argued that the states did not have standing.

"At bottom, State Plaintiffs' concerns are their residents' rights and relationships with the federal government," he wrote. "But as the numerous suits filed by individual plaintiffs nationwide against the Executive Order show, individuals are themselves capable of remedying any alleged injury."