DOJ Takes Action on AG Mayes’ Groundbreaking Birthright Lawsuit

The U.S. Department of Justice has asserted that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes lacks the legal authority to challenge President Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship. This stance was articulated in a comprehensive 60-page legal brief submitted by Brett Shumate, acting assistant attorney general of the civil rights division.

Shumate contends that Mayes and other state attorneys general do not have standing to contest the order, emphasizing that only individuals who demonstrate actual harm from an action can seek federal court intervention. He informed U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour that no such evidence exists in this case.

While states have claimed they will incur increased costs in providing services to individuals no longer considered citizens under the Trump administration’s directive, Shumate pointed out the order does not impose any obligation on states to supply those services. He characterized these costs as “self-inflicted injuries” resulting from voluntary decisions made by state legislatures.

Shumate also clarified that a federal law exists requiring hospitals to offer emergency care, but he indicated this is governed by different legal parameters for hospitals participating in Medicare. He noted that individuals denied citizenship do possess appeal rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but these appeals are addressed on a case-by-case basis.

If Judge Coughenour is not swayed by these arguments, Shumate has additional reasoning focused on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He highlighted a Supreme Court ruling from 1898 which recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship for “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation.” Notably, Shumate cited concerns expressed by Trump regarding “unprecedented illegal immigration,” which he argued presents national security issues.

At stake is the classification of individuals who may no longer enjoy automatic citizenship. Two specific scenarios mentioned involve parents improperly present in the country at the time of birth and parents in the country temporarily but lacking legal status.

The executive order instructs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents for those under these circumstances and to disregard local or state documentation that purports to confer citizenship.

This legal battle revolves around a critical interpretation of the 14th Amendment, designed to secure citizenship rights for African Americans post-Civil War. Shumate referenced the 1898 case involving Wong Kim Ark, whose citizenship was upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that he was born in the U.S. to immigrant parents with a permanent residence.

In contrast, Shumate argued that temporary visitors and illegal aliens maintain ties to their home countries rather than the U.S. He emphasized that illegal aliens, by definition, lack the right to remain in the country, therefore do not qualify as having lawful residence.

Additionally, Shumate pointed out historical contexts in which even members of Indian tribes born in the U.S. were not afforded birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. This historical precedent, he argued, underlines the weaker claims of both illegal aliens and temporary visitors compared to those with established ties to the nation.