In a significant show of unity, nearly all Republican attorneys general have urged the Supreme Court to back President Donald Trump in his pursuit to limit birthright citizenship. Led by Brenna Bird of Iowa and Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, 24 states filed an amicus brief asserting that the 14th Amendment was never intended to automatically grant citizenship to those born in the U.S. to parents living in the country illegally or those merely visiting.
The attorneys general articulated their stake in revising birthright citizenship, claiming it fosters illegal immigration. They argue that the influx of illegal immigrants—over 9 million, according to their estimates—has strained their states’ infrastructures and overwhelmed essential services. Their brief highlights concerns, stating that such policies present “a powerful incentive for illegal migration” that goes beyond what the Citizenship Clause was established to guarantee.
This legal dispute has the backdrop of the expectation that the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear Trump’s petition to reinterpret the long-standing amendment. This could potentially reshape the understanding of citizenship, especially in the context of children born to noncitizens. Four states—Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire—opted out of joining the amicus brief, driven by various political considerations.
Skrmetti emphasized the historical context of the amendment, explaining that it was crafted in a post-Civil War era specifically to address children of individuals legally residing in the U.S., such as former slaves. He remarked, “Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship.” This statement reflects a deeper legal argument: that citizenship should not be automatically conferred without regard to parental status.
President Trump has actively pursued this agenda since taking office, issuing an executive order aimed at denying automatic citizenship to children of certain noncitizen mothers. This order was met with immediate legal challenges, leading to a series of rulings that blocked its enforcement. In response to these developments, the Supreme Court deemed that nationwide injunctions related to this issue were unconstitutional, leaving room for alternative legal approaches, including class action lawsuits.
Despite the strong backing from Republican states, the judicial community exhibits skepticism regarding Trump’s initiative. Several lower court judges have characterized the president’s plans as unrealistic. Notable among them is Judge John Coughenour, who criticized Trump’s stance during a hearing, suggesting that his approach to the law appears to prioritize political expediency over adherence to established legal principles. The judge noted, “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.” He also advised that any genuine change to the established practice of birthright citizenship would necessitate congressional action rather than executive maneuvering.
The outcome of this legal battle has far-reaching implications. A ruling favoring Trump could redefine citizenship for generations to come, altering the landscape of immigration and legal interpretation of the Constitution. As the nation waits for the Supreme Court’s decision, the tensions surrounding immigration policy and citizenship rights remain charged.
"*" indicates required fields
