Related videos:
The legal battle surrounding the controversial executive order by Donald Trump that seeks to eliminate the automatic right to citizenship by birth in the U.S. has faced a new judicial setback.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, has joined the growing chorus of courts that are blocking the president's measure, reaffirming that this right is enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be overridden by presidential decree.
An executive order under judicial fire
Signed on the same day Trump took office in January, the executive order aims to suspend automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The measure triggered a nationwide avalanche of lawsuits, led by states like California and civil rights organizations, which have denounced its unconstitutional nature.
This Friday, the Boston appeals court concluded that it is likely the plaintiffs will succeed in their argument that Trump's measure violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.”
Therefore, it confirmed the precautionary measures issued by lower courts that had already temporarily blocked the enforcement of the order.
In their ruling, the three judges on the panel did not hold back in warning about the risks of altering one of the most firmly established principles of U.S. constitutional law.
"The lessons of history give us every reason to distrust this latest effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing citizenship by birth," they stated.
They added that changing this principle "would make citizenship dependent on the actions of parents rather than—except in very exceptional circumstances—on the mere fact of having been born in the United States."
This decision makes the First Circuit the second appellate court, and the fifth federal court since June, to rule against the presidential order, thus establishing a strong judicial precedent.
A state coalition in defense of citizenship
Rob Bonta, California's Attorney General, one of nearly 20 states that sued the Trump administration, celebrated the ruling as a victory for fundamental rights.
"The president's assault on citizenship by birth flagrantly challenges the 14th Amendment," he stated in a statement.
"A nationwide court order is the only reasonable way to protect against its catastrophic implications," he added.
The plaintiffs in the Boston case argue that Trump exceeded his executive powers by signing an order that "flagrantly attempts to strip hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children of their citizenship based on their ancestry," an act they labeled as unconstitutional and unprecedented.
Conflicting interpretations of the 14th Amendment
At the center of the legal debate is the interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
While the plaintiffs and federal courts argue that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen regardless of their parents' immigration status, the Department of Justice under Trump contends that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" excludes the children of undocumented immigrants or those with temporary status.
This argument, however, clashes with fundamental legal precedents.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen by birth, establishing a clear legal foundation that has lasted for over a century.
An inevitable path to the Supreme Court
Despite judicial setbacks, the Trump administration has not reversed its course.
In September, the government asked the Supreme Court to review the case and uphold the executive order.
The White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, stated: "The court is misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. We hope the Supreme Court will rule in our favor."
Already in June, the country's highest court stated that lower courts cannot issue, as a general rule, judicial orders with nationwide effects.
However, he left the door open for exceptions, such as class actions or those led by states, which allows the legal battle to continue.
Meanwhile, federal judges in Maryland and New Hampshire have also issued nationwide injunctions against the order, and an appeals court in San Francisco upheld another block imposed by a lower court.
The Supreme Court is expected to agree to review the case and issue a definitive ruling in the summer of 2026, a decision that could redefine how the United States understands and guarantees citizenship to millions of children born on its territory.
Filed under: