A federal appeals court has reaffirmed one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, upholding birthright citizenship for all children born on American soil. In a decision welcomed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction preventing efforts by the former Trump administration to undermine this constitutional guarantee.
The ruling stems from legal challenges filed in response to public statements and policy actions by the Trump administration that signaled an intent to reinterpret or restrict birthright citizenship—especially for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. While no formal executive order was ever signed to end birthright citizenship, former President Donald Trump declared in 2018 that he intended to issue one. The declaration set off a firestorm of legal and constitutional debate, prompting attorneys general from multiple states to take action in defense of the 14th Amendment.
Raoul, who led the multistate lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, and Washington, issued a strong statement following the court’s July decision. “No president can arbitrarily pick and choose which children born in the United States are allowed to be citizens of this country,” he said. “Birthright citizenship has been enshrined in our Constitution in unambiguous language for more than 150 years, and no president has the authority to override the Constitution. The district court could not have been more right in February when it deemed the president’s order as being ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’”
Although Trump’s remarks did not result in an executive order ending birthright citizenship, they were followed by a 2019 policy directive issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that made it more difficult for some children born abroad to U.S. military members and federal government employees to acquire automatic citizenship. That policy, which deviated from long-standing interpretation, was widely criticized as part of a broader effort to challenge birthright citizenship and redefine how citizenship is granted. It was eventually rescinded.
Raoul, himself a birthright citizen born in Chicago to Haitian immigrants, emphasized the deeply personal nature of the issue. “As a birthright citizen, I will not stop fighting to protect the constitutionally-protected right to citizenship that is unquestionably guaranteed to all children born in this country to parents who are not yet naturalized citizens.”
The legal foundation for birthright citizenship rests in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which reads in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Originally intended to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, the amendment has since been interpreted by courts to apply broadly to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
That interpretation was solidified in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by birth, even though Chinese nationals were barred at the time from becoming naturalized citizens. The decision set a precedent that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born in the United States.
Efforts to roll back that precedent have emerged sporadically over the past several decades, often in the form of proposed legislation in Congress seeking to limit citizenship to children with at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent. Those attempts have consistently failed, as they conflict with established constitutional interpretation and would likely require a constitutional amendment—an extremely difficult and politically unlikely process.
The Trump administration’s rhetoric and limited policy changes reignited those efforts, raising fears among immigrant communities and civil rights groups that a new generation of American-born children could be denied citizenship. Legal experts warned that such moves could create a population of stateless individuals and further marginalize immigrant families.
The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit affirms the lower court’s finding that any attempt to strip birthright citizenship through executive action is unconstitutional. The court maintained a nationwide injunction, effectively blocking any federal action that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ status.
Raoul’s leadership in the legal challenge underscores his ongoing role in protecting civil and constitutional rights at both the state and national levels. He has been a vocal advocate for immigrant communities and a staunch opponent of policies that attempt to circumvent the Constitution through executive power.
While debates over immigration policy continue to shape the political landscape, the 9th Circuit’s decision marks a significant legal victory for advocates of civil rights and constitutional protections. It also reaffirms a defining American principle—that citizenship by birth is a right, not a privilege, and cannot be erased by the will of a single president.
With this ruling, the courts have once again affirmed that the Constitution, not political rhetoric, governs who is entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizenship.