Affirmed

Article II of the Constitution establishes the scope of presidential powers.  The President has the power to issue executive orders if they "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," on matters that fall within that scope established by Article II.  But one power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution.  Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution. 

The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional.  We fully agree.  The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868.  This runs the risk of "‘extrapolat[ing]' from the Constitution's text and history ‘the values behind [that right], and then ... enforc[ing] its guarantees only to the extent they serve those underlying values.'"  We reject this approach because it is contrary to the express language of the Citizenship Clause, the reasoning of Wong Kim Ark, Executive Branch practice for the past 125 years, the legislative history to the extent that should be considered, and because it is contrary to justice.

-- Majority opinion of a 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, affirming a lower court injunction against President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (23 July 2025)