(Bloomberg) — Alphabet Inc. said demand for artificial intelligence products boosted quarterly sales, and now requires an extreme increase in capital spending — heightening pressure on the company to justify the cost of keeping up in the AI race.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Google’s parent company said 2025 capital expenditures will be $85 billion, or $10 billion greater than an earlier forecast. Although Alphabet beat expectations for second-quarter revenue and profit, its stock initially sank in after-hours trading, then rebounded after Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai explained that the investments are necessary in order to keep up with customer needs. “Our AI infrastructure investments are crucial to meeting the growth in demand from cloud customers,” he said on a call Wednesday following the report.

As Microsoft Corp., startup OpenAI, Meta Platforms Inc. and others continue to pour money into AI, Alphabet has little choice but to follow suit, analysts said. The race is particularly urgent for Google: competitors are building chatbots that may eventually appeal to consumers more than its flagship search product. “Google’s hand is forced by OpenAI to spend tremendously on AI’s infrastructure and applications,” said Nikhil Lai, an analyst at Forrester.

The recent quarter was strong almost across the board for Alphabet. Sales, excluding partner payouts, climbed to $81.7 billion, Alphabet said in a statement, topping analysts’ projections of $79.6 billion on average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Alphabet is counting on its core search advertising juggernaut and growing cloud computing business to support its spiraling spending on AI. Employees are under pressure to bring AI products to market faster, from new modes of search to tools for cloud customers. “We are seeing significant demand for our comprehensive AI product portfolio,” Pichai said.

Chief Financial Officer Anat Ashkenazi said capital expenditures will rise yet again next year, without providing details.

The strain of the AI race could be spotted elsewhere in the company’s results. Ashkenazi attributed the company’s 16% jump in spending on research and development to increases in pay packages for key employees. Meta has been making unprecedented compensation offers as it seeks to woo researchers for its superintelligence lab, driving up the price for key employees across the industry.

A federal appeals court delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it unconstitutional.

It’s the latest step in an ongoing battle between Trump and various judges in states far over his plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal migrants.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump´s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire.

It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.

‘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 majority wrote.

The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump´s effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration´s attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain.

The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

A federal appeals court delivered a blow to Donald Trump ‘s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it unconstitutional

It’s the latest step in an ongoing battle between Trump and various judges in states far over his plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal migrants

The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions.

But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices.

The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country.

‘We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,’ Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don’t have the legal right, or standing, to sue.

‘We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of `complete relief´ isn´t a backdoor to universal injunctions,’ he wrote.

Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens.

Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase ‘subject to United States jurisdiction’ in the amendment means that citizenship isn´t automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump´s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire

The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country

The states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil.

Trump´s order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S.

After the recent Supreme Court ruling that blocked federal judges from stopping Trump though ‘nationwide injunctions,’ a class-action lawsuit was deemed the only option to stop the president.

The high court had allowed Trump’s executive order halting birthright citizenship to take effect handing him a major victory.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump, with all six conservative justices – including the three he appointed – siding with the president.

Speaking at the White House, Trump reacted at the time: ‘This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we’re very happy about. This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it’s all about.’

Trump has long complained about individual judges in liberal states being able to issue orders against his policies that apply across the country.

(Bloomberg) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that President Donald Trump’s limits on birthright citizenship are unconstitutional in the latest setback for his immigration crackdown.

Most Read from Bloomberg

The decision Wednesday by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an earlier ruling by a judge in Seattle who blocked Trump’s executive order nationwide in a case brought by a group of Democratic state officials from Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon.

Multiple lawsuits were filed since January challenging Trump’s push to end automatic birthright citizenship for babies born in the US to parents who aren’t lawfully in the country or temporarily visiting to work or study. Although the fight reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, the justices didn’t rule on whether Trump’s order is constitutional.

“The district court correctly concluded that the executive order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional,” the majority of the panel said.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued.

The Supreme Court’s finding, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn’t stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president’s birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed.

This month, a federal judge in New Hampshire was the first to again block the president’s executive order nationwide after the Supreme Court ruling. He did so by green-lighting the case as a class action on behalf of newborn babies whose legal status would be in question under Trump’s order.

Wednesday’s ruling is a significant victory for the four states that sued the administration in Seattle in January. The appellate panel endorsed another path for a nationwide order, finding that was the only way to give the states that sued total relief — a possibility Justice Amy Coney Barrett left open in her majority opinion, even as she and the rest of the conservative wing curbed lower courts’ power to enter universal injunctions.

Donald Trump’s effort to repeal birthright citizenship has hit another a stumbling block, with a federal appeals court in San Francisco declaring the president’s attempt unconstitutional.

The three-judge ruling panel in the 9th US circuit court of appeals echoed a district court in New Hampshire that blocked the executive order earlier this month.

“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 verdict said.

The case is now one stop further on the long road to the US supreme court.

Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship was signed just hours after the president took office on 20 January and was immediately challenged in a spread of courts across the country. It has faced a tumultuous legal battle ever since. Birthright citizenship is a legal principle that allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen.

In under a month since the executive order’s filing, multiple judges across the country have filed injunctions blocking the order.

Trump’s administration then took to the supreme court to fight the injunctions. In a major decision, the US supreme court ruled that injunctions by the lower courts were exceeding their given authority, effectively transforming the mechanics of the US justice system. The verdict did not address the legality of the birthright citizenship ban itself.

A loophole was left, however, for those looking to fight the executive order – class action lawsuits. In opposition to the executive order, New Hampshire judge Joseph LaPlante recognized babies across the US as a class that would be affected by the lawsuit and said depriving them of citizenship constituted irreparable harm.

Birthright citizenship was embedded in the US constitution’s 14th amendment in 1868, overturning the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision and giving citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans. It was strengthened in 1898 in the Wong Ark case, which upheld the citizenship of American-born Wong Kim Ark in the face of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Indigenous Americans were historically excluded from birthright citizenship, which changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Long a fringe issue in rightwing circles, the effort to repeal birthright citizenship was brought back into Congress in 1991 and has appeared regularly since. Trump’s executive order, constitutional or not, marks its furthest foray into the mainstream.

At time of writing the Trump administration was yet to comment on the ruling.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump’s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.

ALSO READ: Trump’s birthright citizenship order remains blocked amid legal battles “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 majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from US District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration’s attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions.

But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. ALSO READ: Trump’s birthright citizenship ban faces new problem: Class actions “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don’t have the legal right, or standing, to sue. “We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of complete relief’ isn’t a backdoor to universal injunctions,” he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to US jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” in the amendment means that citizenship isn’t automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone.