Los Angeles, CA – A coalition of attorneys general from 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the city of San Francisco filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship. The brief argues that the president’s actions are illegal and violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The legal challenge centers on an executive order issued by President Trump upon taking office in 2025, aiming to finish the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or holding temporary visas. The order immediately faced legal opposition, resulting in multiple lawsuits and nationwide injunctions that have prevented its implementation.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, leading the coalition, stated, “The Fourteenth Amendment is clear: if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. President Trump does not have the power to change that on a whim.”
The amicus brief warns of significant harm to states and their residents should the executive order be allowed to stand. It highlights the potential for children to be stripped of their fundamental rights and subjected to the threat of deportation. The brief further notes the possibility of creating stateless individuals, lacking any national affiliation. According to a study by the Migration Policy Institute, approximately 255,000 births annually could be affected by such limitations to birthright citizenship.
President Trump has defended his position by asserting that the 14th Amendment was originally intended to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people and not to provide citizenship to those he claims are exploiting the system for immigration purposes. This interpretation of the amendment’s history has been widely disputed by legal scholars.
Joining Attorney General Mayes in supporting the brief are the attorneys general of New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the city of San Francisco.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last year, and a decision is pending. The court’s consideration of the case follows a recent ruling allowing immigration agents to resume patrols in Los Angeles, a decision that has also drawn criticism from immigrant rights groups.
Separately, the Supreme Court recently rejected an attempt by former President Trump to deploy the National Guard in Illinois, signaling a potential limit to presidential authority in certain areas of domestic security.
