Two Dozen States Rally Behind Trump’s SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Petition

FIRST ON FOX: Nearly every Republican attorney general asked the Supreme Court on Friday to side with President Donald Trump in his fight to restrict the citizen’s birthright, offering broad support for one of the most controversial items on the president’s agenda.

The 24 states, led by Brenna Bird of Iowa and Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, argued in an amicus brief that the 14th Amendment, which addresses birthright citizenship, was not designed to automatically grant citizenship to babies born to mothers living illegally or temporarily visiting the country.

State attorneys wrote that they had a particular interest in having the birthright limited because it encourages illegal immigration, which they say has negatively impacted their states.

“In recent years, we have seen an influx of illegal aliens – more than 9 million – overwhelming our nation’s infrastructure and capacity for assimilation,” they wrote, adding that their states therefore face “significant economic, health, and public safety problems due to policies that constitute a ‘powerful incentive for illegal migration’…beyond what the Citizenship Clause requires.”

HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES THE FIGHT FOR TRUMP’S BIRTH CITIZENSHIP

Protesters hold a sign in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 27, 2025. (Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)

States are rallying behind Trump and the Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether it will act on the president’s request that the high court should reinterpret the 150-year-old amendment to eliminate automatic citizenship.

Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire did not join Friday’s amicus brief. Fox News Digital has contacted its offices for comment. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares faces a tight re-election race in the blue-leaning state.

Skrmetti of Tennessee pointed out in a statement that the post-Civil War citizenship amendment was designed to address the children of people legally residing in the country, including former slaves.

“If you look at the law of the time, citizenship was attached to children whose parents legally resided in the country,” Skrmetti said. “Every child born in this country is precious, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to U.S. citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the states and our nation.”

Trump signed an executive order upon taking office stating that newborns of certain non-citizen mothers, including those living in the country illegally, do not automatically gain citizenship unless their father is a citizen.

The order immediately gave rise to several lawsuits. In response to justices who unanimously blocked it, the Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions like those in birthright citizenship cases were unconstitutional.

But the high court left in place alternatives, including class actions, prompting plaintiffs to challenge Trump’s order to refile their cases in a way that aligns with the justices’ order. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the merits of Trump’s plan.

SCOTUS RULES ON TRUMP’S BIRTH CITIZENSHIP ORDER, TESTING LOWER COURT’S POWERS

President Donald Trump holds a signed executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, January 23, 2025. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Lower court judges said Trump’s plan was far-fetched, despite broad Republican support.

Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, reprimanded the government’s lawyers during a hearing on the issue earlier this year.

People demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court on May 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. The court heard arguments over whether lower courts could block President Donald Trump’s policy to end birthright citizenship. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It has become increasingly clear that, for our president, the rule of law is only an obstacle to his political goals,” the judge said. “The rule of law is, in his view, something to be circumvented or simply ignored, whether for political or personal gain.”

Coughenour said that if Trump wanted to change the “exceptional birthright grant of American citizenship,” then the president should work with Congress to amend the Constitution rather than attempting to redefine the amendment through an executive order.