A federal appeals court has dealt a blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, ruling that his executive order was unconstitutional.

“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,” Judge Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the 2-1 majority on the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals.

The majority concluded in Wednesday’s ruling that the executive order was “invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States.’”

Gould was joined on the majority by Judge Michael Hawkins, who was also appointed by Clinton. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, partially dissented, arguing the states did not have the right to bring the case.

Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on the Supreme Court ruling on June 27. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The decision prevents the government from nationwide enforcement of Trump’s order, which aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his presidency titled, “Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship.” It attempted to limit birthright citizenship even though it is enshrined by the 14th Amendment.

The order was swiftly challenged in the courts, and was blocked within a month by three federal district judges who issued nationwide injunctions.

The Trump administration sought relief from the Supreme Court, which did not rule on the constitutionality of the order, but instead argued in June that lower courts do not have the authority to block the policies nationwide.

The 9th Circuit case was filed by Democratic attorneys general in four states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. They argued that it would be problematic for the order not to apply nationwide.

Protesters outside the Supreme Court demonstrate against Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

It marks the second time a court has ruled against Trump’s order since the Supreme Court’s decision to restrict injunctions. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked Trump’s order nationwide by certifying a class-action lawsuit.

Trump’s order was first blocked in February by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee based in Seattle. Wednesday’s decision keeps that decision in place.

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 divided federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s executive order outlawing birthright citizenship cannot go into effect, upholding a lower court order blocking the directive.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon challenging Trump’s Jan. 20 birthright citizenship executive order would be likely to succeed in demonstrating that it is unconstitutional.

“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is Unconstitutional,” read the appeals court’s majority opinion. “We fully agree.”

3 The appeals court ruling comes after the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions in response to lawsuits against Trump’s birthright citizenship order last month. AP

Judges Michael Day Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould, both appointees of former President Bill Clinton, ruled in the majority, while Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, partially dissented.

Bumatay argued that the states didn’t have standing to sue the Trump administration over the order.

“Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief,” Bumatay wrote.

“Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds,” he added. “No matter how significant the question or how high the stakes of the case — at all times, we must adhere to the confines of ‘the judicial Power.’”

The Trump-appointed judge did not express an opinion on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.

The judges in the majority found that the Democrat-led states were entitled to a nationwide injunction, because a narrower block would not provide them with “complete relief.”

The ruling keeps an injunction issued by Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour in place.

Federal judges in New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts have also issued sweeping universal injunctions blocking Trump’s order from taking effect.

3 The appeals court found that Democrat-led states challenging the executive order were likely to succeed. Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire / SplashNews.com

The appeals court order comes after the Supreme Court ruled last month that nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges “likely exceed” the judicial branch’s constitutional authority.

The case centered on injunctions related to Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, and the high court curtailed the ability of federal judges to block presidential policies.

The justices, however, allowed some plaintiffs — including those in class-action lawsuits and states — to continue to seek universal injunctions if needed for complete relief.

Both avenues have been pursued by plaintiffs seeking to stop Trump’s directive.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, two courts — the Ninth Circuit and a New Hampshire district court — have issued temporary nationwide injunctions of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Seattle district court “did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief.”

3 The appeals court agreed with the Democrat-led states and the lower court that deemed the order unconstitutional. Eric Kayne/ZUMA / SplashNews.com

Trump’s executive order seeks to only grant automatic citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump maintains that birthright citizenship has been abused and ushered in an era of “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals have babies in the US to give their children citizenship.

The president and his allies have also argued that the Civil War-era amendment was originally aimed at the children of freed slaves, and has since been improperly interpreted as applying to the children of migrants.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

A US appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship was unconstitutional and backed the decision of a lower court to block the nationwide order.

The order has been mired in legal back-and-forth for months, and is currently halted by a federal court amid multiple legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruled last month that lone judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions against a string of Trump’s policies, including his move to end birthright citizenship.

Several district judges had blocked Trump’s attempt to end the longstanding rule, guaranteed in the US Constitution, that anyone born on US soil is automatically an American citizen.

But the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that an injunction issued by a district judge based in Seattle was not a case of judicial overreach.

“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 Ronald Gould wrote.

According to Gould’s ruling, limiting an injunction to the state level would be as ineffective as not blocking the order at all, because of complications that could arise if people move between states with different citizenship rules.

The appeals court also concluded that Trump’s birthright order went against the wording of the US 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,” Gould wrote.

Trump’s Executive Order

Trump’s executive order decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens — a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, avoided ruling last month on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and only addressed the issue of nationwide injunctions, which was nevertheless claimed by Trump as a “giant win.”

The Supreme Court also left open the possibility that executive orders could be blocked via broad class-action lawsuits against the government.

A federal judge earlier this month granted class-action status to any child who would potentially be denied citizenship under Trump’s order, and issued a preliminary halt to it as legal proceedings carry on.

Court makes crucial decision on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship

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.