Dozens of Republican Attorneys General Support President Trump’s Push to End Birthright Citizenship

A powerful coalition of Republican attorneys general is rallying behind President Donald Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship — a long-debated policy that many conservatives view as a magnet for illegal immigration.

In a major development Friday, 24 states led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to support Trump’s executive order halting automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizen mothers.

According to Fox News, the filing argues that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to children born to individuals in the country illegally or temporarily.

“The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to address citizenship for people lawfully present in the United States — not to reward unlawful entry,” the attorneys general wrote.

The coalition warned that birthright citizenship has become a “powerful incentive for illegal migration,” citing a surge of more than nine million illegal border crossings that have strained state and local resources nationwide.

“Our states face significant economic, health, and public-safety issues from policies holding out a powerful incentive for illegal migration, beyond what the Citizenship Clause requires,” the brief stated.

A Constitutional Clash with National Consequences

The Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to take up President Trump’s petition to revisit the 150-year-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment — a move that could reshape America’s immigration framework for generations.

Not all Republican-led states joined the effort. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire were notably absent from the amicus brief. Fox News Digital reported that their offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, facing re-election in a Democrat-leaning state, has remained silent on the issue.

Skrmetti emphasized that the amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was meant to secure citizenship for the children of freed slaves and lawful residents, not for those who entered the country in violation of U.S. law.

“If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country,” Skrmetti said. “Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship.”

He added that the case gives the Supreme Court a rare opportunity to “resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation.”

Trump’s Executive Order and Legal Battles

Soon after returning to the White House, President Trump signed an executive order clarifying that children born to certain noncitizen mothers — including those in the U.S. illegally — would no longer automatically receive American citizenship unless their fathers were citizens.

The move triggered a wave of lawsuits and nationwide injunctions from liberal judges. While the Supreme Court later ruled that such broad injunctions were unconstitutional, lower courts have continued to block Trump’s policy, keeping the issue in legal limbo.

One of the most vocal critics has been U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee based in Seattle, who accused the president of disregarding judicial authority.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said, arguing that Trump should “work with Congress to amend the Constitution rather than redefine it by executive action.”

Legal experts say if the Supreme Court takes the case, the outcome could redefine the very concept of American citizenship and mark a turning point in immigration policy under President Trump’s second term.