Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, joined by the attorneys general of Iowa and 22 other states, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today, urging a fundamental reassessment of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The states are asking the Court to clarify that the Citizenship Clause does not mandate automatic citizenship for every person born on U.S. soil, particularly when the parents lack legal residency or permanent domicile.
The brief supports the petitioners in the consolidated cases of Donald J. Trump, et al., v. State of Washington, et al. and Donald J. Trump, et al., v. Barbara, et al., which challenge an executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship. The amici states argue that lower courts have misinterpreted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, wrongly extending it to children of parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present in the U.S.
READ :CNBC’s Joe Kernen Zings Hakeem Jeffries On Shutdown ‘Bad Look’ vs. ‘Leverage’
Arguments for Redefinition
Attorney General Skrmetti asserted that the modern, expansive view of birthright citizenship is inconsistent with both the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and the historical understanding at the time of its adoption following the Civil War.
“The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn’t square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War,” said Attorney General Skrmetti. He further argued that historical evidence from the Reconstruction Era suggests citizenship was understood to attach primarily to children whose parents were lawfully in the country and owed allegiance to the U.S.
The coalition’s brief contends that this historical evidence, including congressional debates and early legal commentary, consistently emphasized that citizenship required parental domicile or allegiance, not temporary or unlawful presence.
READ :Arkansas Sen. Cotton Demands Full Visa Audit After Hamas-Linked Fighter Arrested In Louisiana
Challenging Precedent and Modern Strain
While acknowledging the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark is often cited to defend the current broad interpretation, the brief notes that the parents in that landmark case were lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the U.S., suggesting the ruling does not definitively cover children of those transiently or illegally present.
The states also argue that the current interpretation creates a powerful incentive for illegal migration, leading to significant strains on their economic, health, and public safety infrastructure. The brief points to the influx of over 9 million illegal aliens in recent years, many of whom move into interior states like Tennessee and Iowa, compounding the challenges faced by state governments.
Joining Tennessee and Iowa in this significant amicus brief are the attorneys general from 22 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve this “constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation,” according to Skrmetti. The outcome could potentially redefine who is considered an American citizen by birth and significantly impact immigration policy and state resources nationwide.
READ: Florida Senator Rick Scott Blasts Democrats For Pay Hypocrisy Amid Government Shutdown
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
