Joint statement from 24 states backs legal fight over constitutional protections

Trenton, NJ– A coalition of 24 state attorneys general is pressing its case against a presidential executive order redefining birthright citizenship, as the issue moves before the U.S. Supreme Court. The group argues the policy conflicts with long-standing constitutional guarantees and federal law, marking a high-stakes legal clash with nationwide implications.

The statement, released Wednesday by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, outlines the coalition’s position ahead of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The attorneys general say prior court rulings have already blocked the order from taking effect and are urging the high court to uphold those decisions.

“The President’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship violates our Constitution, federal statutes, and the rule that has governed our Nation for more than 150 years,” said Davenport. “We were proud to lead the fight against this unlawful order, and grateful for the injunctions we obtained that prevented this action from ever taking effect.”

Multistate coalition backs constitutional challenge

Davenport is joined by attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

The coalition emphasized that multiple courts have already reviewed the executive order and issued injunctions blocking its enforcement. The attorneys general argue those rulings reflect a consistent legal interpretation that the order conflicts with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has governed citizenship rights for more than a century.

“We are optimistic the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with every judge to consider this executive order on the merits and hold that it violates this fundamental constitutional right,” Davenport said.

Supreme Court review could set national precedent

The case now before the Supreme Court could determine the scope of presidential authority over citizenship policy and clarify constitutional protections tied to birthright citizenship. Legal analysts have noted the outcome may carry lasting consequences for immigration policy and federal-state relations.

The attorneys general coalition framed the case as a defense of established legal standards, pointing to what they describe as a consistent judicial response across multiple jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to resolve the dispute and set a binding precedent nationwide.

Phil Stilton Latest posts

Phil Stilton is the Editor and Publisher of Shore News Network, an independent digital newsroom providing original reporting on New Jersey, national news, government, public policy, public safety, courts, and community affairs.

As founder of the publication, Stilton leads editorial strategy, investigative reporting, and daily newsroom operations while overseeing coverage that reaches millions of readers annually.

With extensive experience covering municipal government, county government, state legislatures, elections, law enforcement, emergency management, and public records, Stilton specializes in translating complex government actions into clear, factual reporting. His work frequently relies on primary source documents, including court filings, legislation, public meeting records, election finance disclosures, government databases, police reports, and Freedom of Information and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests. He has reported extensively on local government accountability, taxpayer spending, campaign finance, public corruption investigations, infrastructure, public safety, and the policies affecting New Jersey residents.

Under Stilton's editorial leadership, Shore News Network has grown into one of New Jersey's largest independent digital news organizations, publishing thousands of original news articles each year while providing breaking news coverage, investigative reporting, and analysis across state and local government. The publication's reporting is routinely sourced from official government agencies, public officials, court records, and firsthand documentation, with a commitment to transparency, attribution, corrections when warranted, and clearly distinguishing factual reporting from opinion.

Stilton's journalism follows established newsroom standards emphasizing accuracy, verification, fairness, and accountability. Every effort is made to verify information through official records and multiple reliable sources before publication. His reporting is intended to provide readers with timely, well-documented information that helps them understand the issues affecting their communities, while maintaining editorial independence from political parties, government agencies, advocacy organizations, and commercial interests.

Readers can submit story tips, corrections, public records, or media inquiries through the official Shore News Network website or its verified social media channels. Shore News Network welcomes corrections and updates when new information becomes available as part of its ongoing commitment to accurate and transparent journalism.