President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Washington state’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship could soon be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
An appeals court late Wednesday rejected the Justice Department’s challenge to a lower court ruling that halted implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order, teeing up an argument justices could soon hear.
Washington’s case, brought with Oregon, Arizona and Illinois as well as two pregnant women without legal immigration status, could be the first the Supreme Court takes up on the birthright citizenship question.
Two of the three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Trump administration had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The three judges were appointed by three different presidents: Trump during his first term, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Danielle Forrest, the Trump appointee, wrote she sided with her colleagues not because of the merits of the case but because the Justice Department hadn’t shown the circumstances were worthy of the emergency action it was seeking.
“Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make,” Forrest wrote. “A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily.”
U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour has called Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional.” In a Seattle courtroom earlier this month, he approved the second of four preliminary injunctions blocking Trump’s order until the case is resolved.
Even if the 9th Circuit judges agreed with the Justice Department’s arguments Wednesday, the three other rulings still would have blocked Trump’s directive.
The executive action aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Legal precedent has long upheld birthright citizenship since it was codified in the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
In court filings, attorneys for the administration had argued the executive order is one part of the White House’s efforts to curb illegal immigration by “removing incentives to unlawful immigration and closing exploitable loopholes.”
They also said the states “cannot plausibly claim any injury” from the administration’s preparations to implement the order. Washington state and the other plaintiffs have said Trump’s order could mean losing federal funding to provide services if people are no longer born citizens.
“The equities and public interest likewise cut decisively in favor of maintaining the injunction,” wrote Lane Polozola, of the Washington state attorney general’s office.
Lifting the lower court ruling, Polozola added, “would cause the States to lose jurisdiction over thousands of their residents, forfeit unrecoverable funds from federal contracts, and invest millions to abruptly change major programs that turn on state residents’ citizenship.”