August 1 – A second federal appeals court has shown strong signs that it may strike down President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States. The order, one of the key components of Trump’s aggressive immigration policy, is facing increasing legal resistance, with federal judges raising serious constitutional concerns.
A three-judge panel from the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, expressed significant doubt during a hearing on Friday about the legality of the order. The judges interrogated a Justice Department attorney on why they should overturn rulings from two federal judges who had previously blocked the policy from taking effect.
One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, reaffirmed just last week his decision to halt the order’s enforcement nationwide, even after a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that limited the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The second judge, based in New Hampshire, initially issued a more narrow ruling but later expanded it into a class-wide injunction following further legal review.
The hearing in the First Circuit comes after a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which was the first federal appellate court to rule that Trump’s order violates the Constitution. These developments indicate that the measure may soon face an even more decisive review at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The executive order in question, signed by Trump on January 20, upon returning to the presidency, The directive calls on federal departments to withhold granting citizenship by birth to children born in the United States unless one parent is either a citizen or a legal permanent resident. This stance stands in opposition to the long-accepted reading of the 14th Amendment, which ensures citizenship for all individuals born or naturalized on U.S. soil.
Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur argued in court that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, was never intended to confer citizenship on children born to individuals who are in the U.S. illegally or only temporarily. He contended that its original purpose was to ensure citizenship for newly freed enslaved individuals and their descendants.
However, the panel of judges expressed skepticism about that interpretation. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron questioned how the administration’s position could be squared with the landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That ruling, still widely regarded as the defining interpretation of the birthright clause, affirmed that children born on U.S. soil to foreign nationals are citizens under the 14th Amendment, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
“We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren’t free to disregard,” Judge Barron emphasized during the hearing. The other two judges on the panel, also appointed by Democratic presidents, echoed similar concerns about the government’s argument.
Legal representatives for several Democratic-led states, including New Jersey, which is one of the main challengers to the order, argued forcefully that the executive action violates deeply rooted constitutional principles. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented or temporarily present are entitled to citizenship,” said Shankar Duraiswamy, representing New Jersey.
The challenge to Trump’s order was brought forward by a coalition of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who filed suit shortly after the executive order was announced. These states contend that the order not only violates the Constitution but also upends more than a century of settled law, potentially creating a class of stateless individuals born in the United States.
Although the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling limited the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, it left open exceptions for courts in certain jurisdictions. That allowed judges in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and the Ninth Circuit to revisit the issue and impose broader legal remedies in response to newly filed challenges.
Judge Sorokin’s ruling in Boston continues to carry significant weight. In his opinion, he stated that the executive order “fundamentally alters the constitutional meaning of birthright citizenship,” and emphasized that the government’s rationale lacks both historical and legal grounding.
Despite these setbacks, the Justice Department continues to defend the policy and has not ruled out seeking review by the Supreme Court. However, with two appeals courts now signaling that they view the order as unconstitutional, the policy’s long-term viability appears increasingly unlikely.
Legal scholars are watching the case closely, as it could lead to a landmark decision that reaffirms or reshapes the understanding of the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to hear the case, it would be faced with determining whether the executive branch can unilaterally reinterpret a constitutional right that has been consistently upheld for more than 125 years.