Your Read is on the Way
Every Story Matters
Every Story Matters
The Hydropower Boom in Africa: A Green Energy Revolution Africa is tapping into its immense hydropower potential, ushering in an era of renewable energy. With monumental projects like Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and the Inga Dams in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the continent is gearing up to address its energy demands sustainably while driving economic growth.
Northern Kenya is a region rich in resources, cultural diversity, and strategic trade potential, yet it remains underutilized in the national development agenda.
Can AI Help cure HIV AIDS in 2025
Why Ruiru is Almost Dominating Thika in 2025
Mathare Exposed! Discover Mathare-Nairobi through an immersive ground and aerial Tour- HD
Bullet Bras Evolution || Where did Bullet Bras go to?
In a major legal defeat for Donald Trump, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that his controversial executive order aiming to strip birthright citizenship from children of undocumented and temporary visa holders is unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court that had already blocked the directive, reinforcing that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil—regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The ruling underscores a fundamental principle of U.S. law, affirming that citizenship by birth cannot be revoked by presidential decree, no matter how aggressively the executive branch attempts to reinterpret constitutional protections.
At this legal battle is the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of American civil rights that ensures citizenship for all individuals born in the United States. Trump’s order, which sought to redefine that right by excluding children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, triggered swift legal backlash and was quickly blocked by district courts.
Critics called the move a direct assault on constitutional law, accusing Trump of attempting to rewrite American identity through executive power. Legal experts argued that such an action could only be achieved through a constitutional amendment or legislative overhaul, not a unilateral order.
In a carefully worded opinion, Judge Ronald Gould of the Ninth Circuit emphasized that limiting the injunction to individual states would undermine national consistency. People could exploit differences between state policies, leading to chaos over citizenship rights across the country.
Gould wrote that the nationwide block was necessary to ensure all states could uphold the Constitution uniformly. He also reaffirmed that Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment had no legal basis, calling the order not just unlawful, but entirely contradictory to the language and intent of the Constitution.
While the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped a direct ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright order last month, it did criticize the widespread use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. Trump had interpreted that decision as a "giant win," but the broader legal question remained unresolved—until now.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court left open the door for broader class-action lawsuits to challenge such executive actions. That’s precisely what unfolded this month when a federal judge granted class-action status to all children who might be affected by the order, allowing the litigation to proceed with full momentum.
This case goes beyond birthright citizenship—it represents a judicial pushback against executive overreach. Trump’s attempt to unilaterally alter a constitutional right has now been firmly shut down by two levels of the federal judiciary.
For immigration advocates and legal scholars, the verdict sends a clear message: constitutional rights cannot be rewritten by fiat, and the courts will act as a safeguard when executive actions threaten foundational principles.
0 comments