The federal court of appeals has strongly criticized the plans for birthright citizenship by former president Donald Trump, citing the conservative words from a Supreme Court justice to support its position.
**The Core Issue: Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment**
Birthright citizenship is at issue, which is enshrined by the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Trump promised to eliminate automatic citizenship in his 2020 presidential campaign for undocumented children who were born in the U.S.
Recent actions by the Court of Appeals show a reluctance on their part to rush into a decision that could have profound consequences for U.S. immigration and constitutional law. The appeals court strengthens its position by quoting Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of Donald Trump. This makes it harder for him to challenge the final decision. This question is about whether or not the children of undocumented migrants born in America should be automatically granted US citizenship.
**Background: The Legal Maneuvering**
The Justice Department filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a Seattle Court stayed Trump’s executive order pertaining to birthright citizenship. It was received with resistance.
On February 19th, the appeals court criticized the Justice Department’s push for a rapid decision, referencing Gorsuch’s remarks in *TikTok Inc. v. Garland*. In January 2025 the Supreme Court was hearing a case involving the sale of TikTok – the Chinese social networking platform.
The Supreme Court dealt with the TikTok matter quickly, recognizing the importance of the issue. It was noted by the Appeals Court that the Supreme Court had stated courts should be cautious when rushing to handle cases.
The Appeals Court cited Gorsuch’s concern regarding the TikTok Case: “Given only a few days to write an opinion after the oral arguments, I can’t profess to the level of certainty that I would wish to have in regards to the arguments and records before us.”
The Appeals Court weighed-in, noting that “deciding important substantive questions on a week’s advance notice is a radical departure from our normal decision making process.” It is not necessary to undertake this work unless circumstances require it. “They don’t here.” Additionally, that court stated “We usually take more time and for good reason: our duty is to ‘act responsibly,’ not dole out ‘justice on the fly,'” quoting *East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden*. The immigration center in this case was challenging the asylum policies of the President. There were concerns that the former president might try to influence the Supreme Court’s interpretation of 14th Amendment.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
**The Path Forward**
The appellate court confirmed it would hear the case. However, not expedited. The court clerk will set a June court date, based on the existing briefing plan. This will ensure a careful and deliberate examination of all the legal and constitutional issues at play in relation to immigration and immigrant rights. Prior US Supreme Court rulings are likely to be carefully examined.