Four states suing the Trump administration over the definition of birthright citizenship have not provided evidence to support their claims of harm, according to records obtained by America First Legal (AFL). The states involved in the lawsuit are Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
The lawsuit challenges an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." (Whitehouse) The order asserts that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause does not grant citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, particularly children of undocumented immigrants.
The plaintiff states argue that if the citizenship of these children, often referred to as "anchor babies," (Whitehouse) is not recognized, they will face financial repercussions. They claim potential losses in federal funding for programs such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and foster care services.
AFL conducted public records requests to verify the states' claims of harm. The responses revealed that none of the states could provide the data or records to substantiate their allegations. Arizona’s Department of Education stated it does not compile relevant data, while Oregon’s Health Authority indicated there were no records related to expenditures for services provided to children of undocumented parents.
Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal, criticized the states for their lack of evidence. "Suing a presidential administration without a concrete injury is an abuse of the courts and the justice system," (Whitehouse) he said. "States must do their homework before running to court with allegations lacking evidentiary support."
Illinois’s Department of Healthcare and Family Services also reported no records regarding expenditures for undocumented persons. Washington’s Healthcare Authority echoed this sentiment, stating it lacked the necessary data.
AFL suggested that the absence of evidence indicates the states may not be tracking this information to avoid accountability regarding the allocation of taxpayer funds to undocumented individuals. "Blue states are claiming one thing in court — that they are harmed by Trump’s executive order — while telling AFL that they either lack responsive evidence or simply do not track that sort of data," (Whitehouse) AFL stated.
The responses from the plaintiff states raise questions about their standing to sue, as a fundamental requirement for any lawsuit is the ability to demonstrate actual harm. Despite this, lower courts have allowed the case to proceed, with some judges issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive order.
In a related case that reached the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted, "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them." (Whitehouse) The Supreme Court's opinion focused on the issue of preliminary injunctions, while the merits of the case were sent back to lower courts for further consideration.
In September, the Trump administration appealed the case again to the Supreme Court to address the merits. Recently, AFL submitted a brief on behalf of House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and 17 other members of Congress, urging the high court to clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship.
AFL’s brief argues that citizenship requires loyalty from the individual and consent from the sovereign. "When that consent is broken, citizenship cannot be claimed," (Whitehouse) the brief states. It emphasizes that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, which entails lawful presence and allegiance.
As the legal battle continues, the implications of the case could have significant effects on the interpretation of citizenship laws and the allocation of federal funds to states.
Why it matters
- Legal or policy outcomes depend on hearings, rulemaking, and potential court challenges.
- Four states lack evidence to support claims of harm from Trump's birthright citizenship order, raising questions about their legal standing.
- The lawsuit challenges a key aspect of the 14th Amendment, potentially reshaping citizenship definitions and federal funding allocations.
- Lower courts have allowed the case to proceed despite the absence of substantiating evidence, indicating judicial complexities in immigration law.
What’s next
- The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to address the merits of the case regarding birthright citizenship.
- AFL submitted a brief urging the Supreme Court to clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, highlighting the need for lawful presence.
- Further hearings in lower courts are expected as the legal battle continues over the executive order's implications.