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.
Police Blotter
Undercover sting ends with Philadelphia man arrested at New Jersey hotel
Shore News Network
Police Blotter
Murder suspect tracked nearly 1,700 miles from Maryland to Colorado
Shore News Network
Police Blotter
Two suspects in black sedan sought after late-night shooting in Southeast DC
Shore News Network
Police Blotter
