In a landmark decision on Wednesday, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous ruling that blocks the Trump administration's controversial birthright citizenship order. This decision marks the first time an appeals court has addressed the issue, setting a significant precedent.

The case originated from three expectant mothers who, along with four states, challenged the constitutionality of the executive order. They feared their children would be rendered stateless—without citizenship in any country. Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour initially blocked the order, deeming it an unconstitutional act by the White House to sidestep established laws for political purposes.

The Trump administration's appeal was met with skepticism in the appeals court. In a 2-1 decision, Judges Micheal Hawkins and Ronald Gould affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing the standing of the state plaintiffs and their likelihood of success in proving the executive order unconstitutional.

The contentious order, signed by President Trump on his first day in office, aimed to deny US citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are either undocumented or in the country on a temporary basis. This move, according to the administration, was intended to "protect the meaning and value of American citizenship."

However, the majority opinion in the appeals court echoed Judge Coughenour's sentiment, stating the order was "contrary to justice" and did not align with Article II of the Constitution.

The implications of this ruling are further complicated by the Supreme Court's stance in Trump v. CASA, which limited the scope of universal injunctions but left room for class-action lawsuits where such injunctions are the only path to "complete relief" for plaintiffs.

Further judicial scrutiny came from New Hampshire Judge Joseph N. Laplante in a related class action lawsuit, where multiple federal agencies were enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional order.

Judge Patrict Bumatay dissented in the latest ruling, cautioning against the liberal use of universal injunctions and expressing concern over the potential misuse of the "complete relief" argument. Bumatay abstained from commenting on the order's constitutionality.

As this judicial battle unfolds, the future of birthright citizenship under the Trump administration's policies remains uncertain, holding significant implications for immigration law and the definition of American citizenship. The case continues to garner attention and stir public debate on a deeply divisive issue.