‘Blatantly unconstitutional’: Even Trump’s own appointees can’t save his delusion as judges refuse to rewrite reality in his favor

A federal appeals court has dealt a major setback to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, ruling that his executive order attempting to limit automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, made this decision in a 2-1 vote, stopping the enforcement of this controversial policy across the country.

This marks a key moment in the ongoing legal fight over who qualifies as an American citizen. According to Reuters, it is the first time a federal appeals court has fully examined the legality of Trump’s order, setting up a likely final battle at the U.S. Supreme Court. This ruling comes shortly after an important U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 27, which tried to restrict the ability of lower court judges to issue broad nationwide orders blocking federal policies.

That Supreme Court ruling, which specifically dealt with lawsuits challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order, told lower courts that had previously blocked the policy nationwide to reconsider the reach of their decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling included special exceptions that allowed for the possibility of reinstating nationwide blocks under certain conditions.

Unsurprisingly, going against the Constitution is unconstitutional

These exceptions have already made a difference. A judge in New Hampshire, using these provisions, recently put a nationwide hold on Trump’s order, issuing an injunction in a class action lawsuit filed for children who would lose their citizenship under the policy. This showed that courts still have the power to stop the executive order from taking effect everywhere, despite the Supreme Court’s general limits on nationwide injunctions.

The first major legal blow to Trump’s order came from Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan. Judge Coughenour had earlier called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” and blocked its enforcement. The 9th Circuit’s recent ruling upheld this decision, supporting the lower court’s judgment that the executive order was legally flawed.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, who wrote the majority opinion, explained the court’s reasoning in detail. He agreed with Judge Coughenour that Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many people born in the U.S. Judge Gould also said that a limited injunction would cause serious harm to the four states suing.

He argued that a partial block would force these states to make major changes to their government benefits programs, as they would have to adjust to different citizenship statuses for people moving into their states under the order. Judge Gould stressed that the only way to avoid this harm was to apply the citizenship clause consistently across the entire country.

The majority of the 9th Circuit agreed with this approach, ruling that the Democratic-led states challenging the policy were still entitled to a nationwide block. The states, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, argued that a more limited order would not fully protect them from the effects of the executive order. Their lawsuit highlighted the widespread consequences and constitutional problems raised by the administration’s stance on citizenship.

After the ruling, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stressing that the president cannot single-handedly change what it means to be an American citizen. This reflects the main argument from the states: that the executive order went beyond presidential authority and directly violated established constitutional principles.

Legal experts now expect the Trump administration to either ask for a review by a larger group of judges in the 9th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the final decision on this major legal dispute will likely be made.