In a ruling that’s sure to make diaper sales soar, an appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday upheld a decision to block President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to rewrite the rules of who gets to call themselves American.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, clearly unimpressed by Trump’s “tighten everything” immigration playbook, tossed out his bid to stop babies from automatically becoming citizens just because they had the audacity to be born on U.S. soil.
And because apparently, even judges have limits when it comes to redefining centuries-old laws—shocking, I know.
The drama kicked off when Trump, barely unpacked from his White House move-in on January 20, scribbled an executive order faster than you can say “baby.”
The order told federal agencies to stop handing out citizenship like candy to kids whose parents aren’t U.S. citizens or green card holders. “Sorry, little Timmy, your mom’s visa status says you’re just a tourist who overstayed the womb,” the policy seemed to imply.
This move is part of the administration’s broader efforts to tighten immigration policies and address concerns over illegal border crossings. Or as some might call it, “Operation: Build That Wall 2.0.”
But Seattle’s U.S. District Judge John Coughenour—whose name sounds like he’s clearing his throat at the absurdity of it all—wasn’t having it. He slapped a nationwide injunction on the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” and probably muttering something about the 14th Amendment under his breath.
The 9th Circuit, in a move that screamed “we’re not in a rush to ruin nap time,” denied Trump’s emergency plea to put the brakes on Coughenour’s ruling and scheduled a casual chat about it for June. Because apparently, deciding the fate of 150,000 babies a year isn’t urgent enough for a Zoom call.
Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee who clearly didn’t get the memo to toe the party line, wrote a concurring opinion that basically said, “Chill, guys, let’s not make this a judicial circus,” emphasizing that judges must make decisions free from ideological or political bias.
Which is just a fancy way of saying, “Hey, let’s not turn the courtroom into another episode of The Apprentice.”
She pointed out that the courts have never signed off on this whole “no citizenship for you” exception, and rushing to judgment might make people think judges are just playing political hopscotch.
The panel also included U.S. Circuit Judge William Canby, appointed by Democratic former President Jimmy Carter, and U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith, appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush. A bipartisan trio of judges who probably agreed on absolutely nothing except how much coffee they needed to get through this case.
They nodded along, proving that bipartisan agreement is still possible when it comes to telling Trump, “Nice try, but we’re not rewriting the Constitution via memo anytime soon.”
Neither the White House nor the Justice Department immediately responded to requests for comment. Probably too busy drafting tweets about how unfair the whole thing is. Classic.
On the other side, Democratic state attorneys general and immigrant rights groups were popping champagne, waving the 14th Amendment like a victory flag.
This clause has historically been interpreted to grant citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil. They point to the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark , which affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship irrespective of the parents’ immigration status.
Fun fact: The only thing older than this legal precedent is the inkwell they used to write it.
Judge Coughenour, appointed by Republican former President Ronald Reagan, initially blocked the order through a temporary restraining order on January 23, later extending it to a preliminary injunction.
Proof that sometimes even Republicans look at Trump’s ideas and go, “Yeah… maybe not.”
“You can’t just slap ‘executive order’ on a Post-it note and call it a constitutional amendment,” he told the administration’s lawyers, probably while adjusting his glasses for dramatic effect.
His ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the Democratic-led states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, along with several pregnant women. Because nothing says “coalition of justice” like four blue states and a bunch of moms-to-be taking on the federal government.
He described Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” Subtle shade much? If this were a rom-com, Judge Coughenour would be the witty best friend delivering all the zingers.
During a hearing on February 6, Judge Coughenour criticized the administration for attempting to strip children born on U.S. soil of their constitutional right to citizenship by disguising what amounted to a constitutional amendment as an executive order.
It’s like sneaking broccoli into a milkshake—except instead of veggies, it’s democracy being pureed.
The lawsuit claimed Trump’s order would leave over 150,000 babies a year stateless.
“Congratulations, it’s a… resident alien?” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
So, for now, the babies win, the 14th Amendment stands tall, and Trump’s immigration squad heads back to the drawing board. Stay tuned for the inevitable Supreme Court showdown—or at least a very strongly worded tweet.
Leave a Reply