(IOWA, UNITED STATES) Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird is co-leading a multistate push to back President Trump’s move to restrict birthright citizenship, filing a Supreme Court brief that defends an executive order signed on January 20, 2025. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” would end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The order was set to take effect after February 19, 2025, but is currently blocked by federal court injunctions while appeals proceed. Bird and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti lead a coalition of 24 states urging the justices to take the case and uphold the order.
Coalition’s legal argument
The states contend that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause never promised citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or short-term visitors (sometimes called “birth tourists”). Their core argument:
- The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause limits who gets citizenship at birth.
- The clause, they say, requires both birth in the United States and full political jurisdiction — a condition they assert does not include children of parents who are in the country illegally or only temporarily.
- Their brief claims that automatic birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and places added stress on state budgets and public services, including health and public safety systems.
The coalition frames the dispute as a return to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War.
Current procedural status (as of October 26, 2025)
- The executive order is not in force.
- Multiple federal courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, placing the order on hold.
- President Trump and the supporting states want the Supreme Court to resolve the constitutional question and allow the policy to start.
- The Court is expected to decide soon whether to hear the case.
Who’s in the coalition
Bird’s filing represents the most robust state-level support yet for changing birthright citizenship. The coalition includes attorneys general from:
- Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Most members are Republicans.
Arguments for and against the order
Supporters’ points:
– The policy would align citizenship with clear ties to the nation, such as having a parent who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
– They argue that automatic citizenship for every child born in the country, regardless of parental status, was not the rule when the amendment was ratified.
– They claim restricting birthright citizenship could reduce incentives for unauthorized border crossings and “birth tourism,” and ease pressures on state services.
Opponents’ points:
– The order clashes with longstanding precedent and settled practice, which for decades has treated nearly all children born on U.S. soil as citizens.
– Civil rights groups, many immigration attorneys, and several former officials warn it could leave thousands of U.S.-born children without citizenship or force families into years of paperwork and risk of deportation.
– Critics say it could create inconsistent outcomes across states and impose new verification duties on hospitals and state agencies.
Federal judges placed the order on hold shortly before and after the planned effective date, citing serious constitutional questions and the need for uniform national rules.
What the policy would change (practical examples)
If allowed to take effect, the executive order would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Practically:
- A child born in a U.S. hospital to parents here without legal status would not receive U.S. citizenship at birth.
- A child born to parents who are short-term visitors, including so-called birth tourists, would not be a citizen at birth.
- A child would be a citizen at birth if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Potential practical consequences:
– Hospitals and state vital records offices may face new verification duties, such as checking a parent’s status before issuing a birth certificate that triggers citizenship.
– Families with mixed immigration status could face complex paperwork and uncertain outcomes.
– Schools, Medicaid eligibility, and state identification systems could be affected because many benefits and documents rely on proof of citizenship.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, a swift rule change could ripple through public services and documentation systems, potentially creating more disputes over access to services if families cannot show citizenship for U.S.-born children.
Fiscal and administrative claims
The coalition’s brief highlights costs they say fall on states — public health, education, and emergency services — and argues restricting birthright citizenship could ease those pressures.
Opponents counter:
– Children denied citizenship could still remain in the United States, meaning states would continue to bear costs.
– States would also face new paperwork demands, legal challenges, and administrative burdens.
Constitutional pathway and stakes
Supporters stress that Congress and the executive must be able to define citizenship consistent with the Constitution’s text. Opponents say only a constitutional amendment or a clear Supreme Court ruling could change the current, broad view of birthright citizenship. Both sides agree the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case will be decisive.
For the legal text at issue, see the Fourteenth Amendment and its Citizenship Clause at the National Archives: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV. That clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” The central dispute is how courts should read “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Human impact — examples
- Consider a couple living in the United States without status who are expecting a child this winter. Under past practice, that baby would be a citizen at birth. Under the executive order, if enforced, the child would not get automatic citizenship and could face a future without a clear path to status for many years.
- A nurse in a rural hospital might be asked to check a parent’s immigration status before flagging a newborn as a citizen — a duty hospitals have not historically carried out.
Media contact and next steps
The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has set up a point of contact for press inquiries about the coalition and the brief.
- Contact: Jen Green, Communications Director
- Email: [email protected]
- Phone: 515-823-9112
Bird’s office says the states want a clear and uniform rule from the Supreme Court before the next birth certificate is issued under uncertain standards.
Key takeaways
- The executive order is on hold due to nationwide preliminary injunctions.
- A coalition of 24 states is pressing the Supreme Court to take the case and uphold the order.
- A Supreme Court ruling could reshape how citizenship is granted to children born in the United States.
- Expect continued court activity in the weeks ahead as the justices decide whether to hear the case.
This Article in a Nutshell
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti spearhead a 24-state coalition asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order that would end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. The order, scheduled to take effect after February 19, 2025, is currently halted by nationwide preliminary injunctions as appeals proceed. The coalition contends the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” limits birthright citizenship and excludes children of undocumented immigrants and short-term visitors. Supporters say the change would reduce incentives for unauthorized immigration and ease state fiscal pressures; critics warn it would disrupt services, impose verification duties on hospitals and agencies, and leave some U.S.-born children without citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case is expected to be decisive.
