Tennessee AG Backs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order In SCOTUS Brief
In a series of emergency appeals, President Donald Trump’s administration has urged the Supreme Court to allow him to proceed with his initiative to end birthright citizenship, elevating a legal theory that multiple lower courts have previously struck down.
As part of these emergency requests, the Trump administration called on the justices to curb the impact of the contentious policy, asserting that lower courts had overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked its implementation.
Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled against the executive order, labeling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Shortly after, a Maryland judge reinforced that stance, stating that Trump’s proposal “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
Appeals courts have since rejected the administration’s attempt to overturn lower court rulings that placed nationwide injunctions on an executive order signed on the first day of Trump’s second term.
For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to guarantee citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This interpretation was upheld in a landmark Supreme Court case in 1898, and the current Court has not signaled any intent to reconsider that precedent.
However, some conservatives argue that the long-standing interpretation is flawed because the 14th Amendment specifies that citizenship is granted to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. According to this perspective, individuals who enter the country unlawfully remain under the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
Following lawsuits from over 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs, federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have all issued injunctions that prevent the executive order from being enforced.
Trump’s Supreme Court appeal does not directly challenge the legality of the policy itself. Instead, the administration has framed its request as a “modest” effort to limit the scope of the injunctions imposed by lower courts.
Even so, this request carries significant weight. If granted, it would permit the administration to enforce its directive against individuals not directly involved in the current lawsuit.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” the Justice Department stated in its emergency appeals to the Supreme Court. “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”
The administration further contended that “during the 20th century, the executive branch adopted the incorrect position that the citizenship clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States – even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.” It argued that “that policy of near-universal birthright citizenship has created strong incentives for illegal immigration.”
On Friday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and non-citizens.
The brief backs Trump’s effort to overturn several nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by federal district courts.
These court orders have currently blocked the implementation of the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship directive. In his filing, Skrmetti emphasized that courts should interpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause based on its “original public meaning.”
He also cautioned against judicial overreach, arguing that it disrupts the balance of powers established by the Constitution.
“Courts are empowered by the Constitution to resolve cases and controversies, not to issue sweeping policy proclamations or manage the executive branch,” Skrmetti stated. “Undermining the sovereignty of the American people through judicial overreach threatens to alienate the people from our constitutional system and thereby cause grievous harm to liberty and public order.”
In a 25-page brief, Skrmetti underscored the necessity for judicial restraint and urged the Supreme Court to provide modern clarification of the Citizenship Clause. He referenced historical documents from the Reconstruction era, asserting that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for children of individuals residing in the U.S. illegally to gain citizenship automatically.
Skrmetti also expressed concern over the growing prevalence of nationwide injunctions, arguing that such judicial actions interfere with the separation of powers and allow courts to dictate sweeping national policies. He pointed to past cases where judicially imposed policies negatively impacted Tennessee and other states, particularly in areas related to immigration and education.
According to the brief, rising immigration levels have strained resources and heightened public safety concerns in Tennessee and other non-border states.
Citing data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Skrmetti noted that over nine million illegal immigrants have entered the U.S. in recent years, with many settling far from the border.
He maintained that these trends are unsustainable and are exacerbated by broad interpretations of the Citizenship Clause, which he believes incentivize unlawful immigration.