Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha issued the following statement today in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc.
“The Fourteenth Amendment expressly grants citizenship to American-born children, and today’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t change that. The Court did not address whether the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen is lawful, but rather whether federal judges can block the attempt nationwide as litigation proceeds. Since January, I’ve travelled across New England speaking to residents concerned about this Administration’s impact on democracy and the rule of law. Throughout my travels, I have explained that we, as Democratic attorneys general, have only sought nationwide injunctions in specific circumstances - when doing so is necessary to remedy the Plaintiff States’ harms.
“But fear not, we won’t be deterred. We welcome the opportunity to continue our fight to protect birthright citizenship in the District Court. More broadly, we will continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans - all Americans - are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.”
On May 15, 2025, Attorney General Neronha released the following:
Attorney General Neronha and the coalition issue a joint statement on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship oral arguments
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Attorney General Peter Neronha and a coalition of attorneys general today issued the following joint statement on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship oral arguments.
"We were proud to stand together to defend birthright citizenship and the rule of law at the U.S. Supreme Court today. For 127 years, since the Supreme Court settled the issue, the law has been clear: if you are born in this country, you are a citizen of the United States and our States. Administrations of both parties have consistently respected that right ever since. As every court to have considered the policy agrees, the President’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is patently unconstitutional. The Trump Administration’s argument before the Supreme Court today—that the President should be permitted to strip American citizenship from people based solely on the state in which they happen to be born—would upend settled law and settled practice and would produce widespread chaos and disruption.
"The President cannot rewrite the Constitution and contradict the Supreme Court’s holdings with the stroke of a pen."
Joining Attorney General Neronha in issuing the statement are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
February 13, 2025: Attorney General Neronha applauds Birthright court decision
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today issued the following statement following a preliminary injunction being granted by a federal judge against President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order terminating birthright citizenship.
“Executive powers are not and never have been, limitless. Today’s preliminary injunction reaffirms what Americans know to be true: we are a country guided by the rule of law, and no President can unilaterally rewrite the Constitution.
“This President and his allies have been planning for this moment, but so have we. Attorneys general in states across this great nation and our talented staff saw the potential for harm should President Trump be re-elected, and we have been planning accordingly. Since the President’s inauguration, we have seen an unprecedented attack on the Constitution, democracy, and American norms and values. His barrage of unconstitutional executive orders is meant to inspire fear, chaos, and, eventually, compliance. We may not be able to quell the fear and chaos, but we certainly have a say in whether we comply with illegal policies and dangerous rhetoric.
“Today’s injunction is reason to be hopeful. American children born in this country should not and cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment – and today, we delivered for them. This is not yet over, far from it. But we will continue to fight every single step of the way.”
Trump is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. He's calling this the "Reinterpretation". Where are his wonderful lawyers? Didn't one of them tell him he can't do this? His power does NOT extend to the Constitution.
Of course, watching the 'coronation' yesterday, he didn't take the oath to uphold the Constitution - he never put his hand on the Bible although Melania was holding them. He thinks he's smarter than the average bear - he's not.
The 14th Amendment also applies to immigration. I don't have an issue with deporting criminals who, oddly, come back again and again. I have a problem when people come here for a better life, as did my ancestors or to leave due to wars and tyranny. We are not an exclusive club. We are the Melting Pot.
Digging a bit (the part I like about the internet) I found this:
A person cannot violate the Constitution because it is a document in which the government is constrained from certain actions. If the Government violates the Constitution, the law causing that violation becomes null and void and has no effect.
What is the penalty for not upholding the Constitution?
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
IMO, any and all EOs issued by Trump need a thorough investigation before release. I would guess there are more violations to be found.
no doubt the "subject to the jurisdiction " clause in the 14th amendment to get citizenship means whatever 5 or more Supreme Court judges say it means. As I understand it, in the past the Court ruled children of Green Card holders (here legally) do get citizenship but it has never ruled on children of those not here legally. I have a nuanced view, I don't think its a good idea to incentivize pregnant women about to give birth to cross the border illegally just to have their babies be US citizens
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha issued the following statement today in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc.
“The Fourteenth Amendment expressly grants citizenship to American-born children, and today’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t change that. The Court did not address whether the Trump Administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen is lawful, but rather whether federal judges can block the attempt nationwide as litigation proceeds. Since January, I’ve travelled across New England speaking to residents concerned about this Administration’s impact on democracy and the rule of law. Throughout my travels, I have explained that we, as Democratic attorneys general, have only sought nationwide injunctions in specific circumstances - when doing so is necessary to remedy the Plaintiff States’ harms.
“But fear not, we won’t be deterred. We welcome the opportunity to continue our fight to protect birthright citizenship in the District Court. More broadly, we will continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans - all Americans - are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.”
On May 15, 2025, Attorney General Neronha released the following:
Attorney General Neronha and the coalition issue a joint statement on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship oral arguments
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Attorney General Peter Neronha and a coalition of attorneys general today issued the following joint statement on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship oral arguments.
"We were proud to stand together to defend birthright citizenship and the rule of law at the U.S. Supreme Court today. For 127 years, since the Supreme Court settled the issue, the law has been clear: if you are born in this country, you are a citizen of the United States and our States. Administrations of both parties have consistently respected that right ever since. As every court to have considered the policy agrees, the President’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is patently unconstitutional. The Trump Administration’s argument before the Supreme Court today—that the President should be permitted to strip American citizenship from people based solely on the state in which they happen to be born—would upend settled law and settled practice and would produce widespread chaos and disruption.
"The President cannot rewrite the Constitution and contradict the Supreme Court’s holdings with the stroke of a pen."
Joining Attorney General Neronha in issuing the statement are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
February 13, 2025: Attorney General Neronha applauds Birthright court decision
Attorney General Peter F. Neronha today issued the following statement following a preliminary injunction being granted by a federal judge against President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order terminating birthright citizenship.
“Executive powers are not and never have been, limitless. Today’s preliminary injunction reaffirms what Americans know to be true: we are a country guided by the rule of law, and no President can unilaterally rewrite the Constitution.
“This President and his allies have been planning for this moment, but so have we. Attorneys general in states across this great nation and our talented staff saw the potential for harm should President Trump be re-elected, and we have been planning accordingly. Since the President’s inauguration, we have seen an unprecedented attack on the Constitution, democracy, and American norms and values. His barrage of unconstitutional executive orders is meant to inspire fear, chaos, and, eventually, compliance. We may not be able to quell the fear and chaos, but we certainly have a say in whether we comply with illegal policies and dangerous rhetoric.
“Today’s injunction is reason to be hopeful. American children born in this country should not and cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment – and today, we delivered for them. This is not yet over, far from it. But we will continue to fight every single step of the way.”
Thanks to Attorney General Neronha and those from other states who have promptly challenged this illegal action.
Trump is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. He's calling this the "Reinterpretation". Where are his wonderful lawyers? Didn't one of them tell him he can't do this? His power does NOT extend to the Constitution.
Of course, watching the 'coronation' yesterday, he didn't take the oath to uphold the Constitution - he never put his hand on the Bible although Melania was holding them. He thinks he's smarter than the average bear - he's not.
The 14th Amendment also applies to immigration. I don't have an issue with deporting criminals who, oddly, come back again and again. I have a problem when people come here for a better life, as did my ancestors or to leave due to wars and tyranny. We are not an exclusive club. We are the Melting Pot.
Digging a bit (the part I like about the internet) I found this:
A person cannot violate the Constitution because it is a document in which the government is constrained from certain actions. If the Government violates the Constitution, the law causing that violation becomes null and void and has no effect.
What is the penalty for not upholding the Constitution?
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
IMO, any and all EOs issued by Trump need a thorough investigation before release. I would guess there are more violations to be found.
And chaos ensues.
no doubt the "subject to the jurisdiction " clause in the 14th amendment to get citizenship means whatever 5 or more Supreme Court judges say it means. As I understand it, in the past the Court ruled children of Green Card holders (here legally) do get citizenship but it has never ruled on children of those not here legally. I have a nuanced view, I don't think its a good idea to incentivize pregnant women about to give birth to cross the border illegally just to have their babies be US citizens
This is what happens when a convicted felon is elected president