(MENAFN- Live Mint) A federal appeals court in Massachusetts has upheld a block on President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to strip babies born in the United States of their citizenship, marking the latest legal defeat for the administration. The ruling reinforces the protections of the 14th Amendment and sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court review.

Why did the appeals court block Trump's executive order?

The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction on President Donald Trump's executive order, which aimed to halt automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

A three-judge panel concluded that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the children described in the order are entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“The 'lessons of history' thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition to recognise birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one's parents rather than - in all but the rarest of circumstances - the simple fact of being born in the United States,” the court wrote.

This is the fifth federal court since June to either issue or uphold orders blocking Trump's birthright citizenship directive. The decision reinforces earlier rulings that prevent the order from taking effect while lawsuits proceed.

What do state officials say about the ruling?

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, representing one of nearly 20 states challenging the order, praised the court's decision.

“The First Circuit reaffirmed what we already knew to be true: The President's attack on birthright citizenship flagrantly defies the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and a nationwide injunction is the only reasonable way to protect against its catastrophic implications. We are glad that the courts have continued to protect Americans' fundamental rights,” Bonta said.

How have civil rights groups reacted?

Civil liberties organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), were also encouraged by the ruling.

“The federal appeals court today reinforced that this executive order is a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution - and we agree. Our Constitution is clear: no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship,” said SangYeob Kim, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Hampshire.

The case included plaintiffs such as the New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support and the League of United Latin American Citizens, representing broader community interests.

What is the Trump administration's response?

The White House has argued that the 14th Amendment's phrase“subject to United States jurisdiction” excludes certain children, asserting that citizenship should not automatically apply based solely on birth location.

“The court is misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated by the Supreme Court,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.

The administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold the order, initiating a process that could result in a definitive ruling by early next summer.

How does this fit into the wider legal context?

The executive order, signed on Inauguration Day, 20 January, faced immediate legal challenges. A lawsuit was filed within two hours of the order being signed. In February, a federal judge temporarily blocked it, prompting the appeal heard on 1 August.

Other federal courts, including judges in Boston, Maryland, New Hampshire, and San Francisco, have similarly blocked the order nationwide, citing its conflict with the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court in June ruled that lower courts cannot usually issue nationwide injunctions, but it left open the possibility for court orders with broad effects in cases such as class actions or state-led lawsuits.

Historical precedent supports birthright citizenship in the United States. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of birth on U.S. soil.

What happens next?

With multiple appeals court rulings against the order, the issue is expected to reach the Supreme Court. The justices may deliver a definitive verdict on whether the president can unilaterally restrict birthright citizenship, potentially shaping constitutional interpretation and immigration law for years to come.

MENAFN06102025007365015876ID1110159108