Today, Attorney General William Tong held a press conference to address a swath of Supreme Court rulings made today before the Justices enter summer recess. 

The most significant ruling made today was in Trump v. CASA, which determines the ability of lower courts to challenge Trump’s executive orders. The executive order in question in the case was Trump’s controversial attempt to nullify birthright citizenship. The Court ruled that injunctions issued by lower courts can only pertain to the named plaintiffs in their cases, rather than be broadly applicable across the country, which significantly reduces the ability of lower courts to challenge laws they deem unconstitutional.

The underlying question of whether birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, remains constitutionally recognized was not determined in the ruling. The courts ruled that Trump’s executive order could not go into effect until 30 days after the ruling was issued.

“Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land and the 14th Amendment continues to operate the way it has always operated for everyone, everywhere, for the next 30 days,” said Tong. “This doesn’t mean the President is right. This doesn’t mean that the court has found that he can amend the Constitution with a stroke of a pen, and abolish birthright citizenship or fundamentally change or overturn the 14th Amendment. It does not mean that at all.”

Connecticut, alongside 17 other states, entered into a suit against the executive order on Jan. 21, 2025. Tong said that for these 18 states, “the injunction remains in place.” He noted that Justice Amy Coney Barrett clearly stated in her majority opinion that the decision does not confirm nor deny the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order.

“She was very explicit that they were not addressing the merits of the case, meaning they expressed no opinion on whether the President’s executive order to ban or eliminate birthright citizenship was lawful or unlawful, constitutional or unconstitutional,” said Tong. 

Tong noted, however, that the ruling does effectively undermine the protections afforded to birthright citizens under the 14th Amendment who have not filed suit already, as the ruling prevents injunctions from impacting anyone who is not a plaintiff in the underlying case. 

Tong said that while the ruling does impact lower courts’ ability to challenge executive power, he believes that states will prevail in their ability to do so, saying the question of how it will impact states’ ability to enact nationwide injunctions was still open. Tong said the ruling “affirmatively punted” on states’ injunction abilities.

“The question about whether states can get nationwide injunctions that apply to other states remains open, and we expect to prevail on that,” said Tong. “We’ll go back down to federal court in Massachusetts and in Washington state, and we expect that it will be clear that states are different and that states can get nationwide injunctions.”

Tong also noted that the open question of states’ rights to file nationwide injunctions might end up dragging other states into litigation against the federal government whenever they’re impacted by rulings that they deem unconstitutional and seek to freeze via injunctions. 

“If there’s an open question as to whether it applies [nationwide injunctions] to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, now they’re going to have to step up,” said Tong. “They will have to step up now, potentially, and defend themselves, and I think it’s about time that they did that.”

Tong said that although the ruling does not nullify birthright citizenship outright, it does leave a considerable number of questions regarding how it will work moving forward. He said that states now will not know the legality of administering programs to birthright citizens, and that it will open a can of worms regarding the recognition of, and protections afforded to, birthright citizenship in each state.

“What are we supposed to do if, if a citizen of our state has a baby in another state, what happens to that baby?” asked Tong. “What if you’re in Pennsylvania and you have a baby, and you’re a Connecticut citizen and resident, and you’re not an American citizen, but your child is born on American soil? What happens if you’re in Pennsylvania and a baby is born and you move to Connecticut the next day?”

“All these questions are open, right?” said Tong. “That’s the chaos and the uncertainty that comes from the President’s unlawful executive order. It throws this entire citizenship regime that we’ve relied on for more than 150 years, it upends it all and throws it into chaos and creates a considerable amount of uncertainty for states.”

Tong quoted Ronald Reagan, who called birthright citizenship “part of the essential character of our nation.” Tong noted his own status as a birthright citizen, saying that today, he and “millions of Americans are Wong Kim Ark,” a Chinese-American born on American soil to non-citizen  Chinese parents, ruled by the Supreme Court to be a citizen in 1898. Tong called birthright citizenship a “promise” made by the United States to millions of Americans.

“It is the promise that this country made to me and my family when I was borno not far from here in Hartford Hospital,” said Tong. “It’s because of that promise that my parents knew that they could make a life here in Connecticut, they didn’t have to move, they didn’t have to run.” 

On the other hand, Tong noted that the Kennedy v. Braidwood Management ruling was a “big win.” Essentially, the case ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement to cover preventive services, which include health screens, vaccinations or any prophylactic medications. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA’s requirement to cover these services.

Tong called the court’s ruling on Mahmoud v. Taylor a “terrible decision.” The case focused on a Maryland school board’s right to determine what books are accessible to students, while a group of parents said their lack of ability to object is a violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents’ ability to object.

“This Supreme Court says that parents now have the right to object, based on their free exercise rights under the First Amendment, that they have the right to object to those books and in the inclusion of those books and those subjects in a curriculum, which I don’t have to tell you, is a potential disaster,” said Tong. “Now I can step into court and say, based on my religious beliefs, whatever they are, I object to this book and that book, and this subject and that subject?”

Tong said that the ruling would mean “chaos” for school boards, who are now open to litigation. Tong said that it is “hard to imagine” how much more difficult it will be for public educators to come up with a curriculum.

Moving forward, Tong noted that the state’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order will continue to work through the courts. If decided in the favor of the states, that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, Tong said it is possible then that the federal government countersues and inevitably brings the constitutional issue itself before the Supreme Court. He also noted that he expects “states will be back on an emergency basis in the lower federal courts,” to continue crafting injunctions.

Ultimately, Tong noted that he and other Attorneys General would continue to fight against the presidency.

“At the end of the day, what we have learned in the past few months is that really the only people who can do anything about what the President is doing and oppose him are Attorneys General,” said Tong. “We’re the first and last line of defense.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.