“Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay,” the states said. “This Court should deny the federal government’s request.”

The states argued that while many constitutional matters are open to debate, birthright citizenship is not one of them. In their filing, they said the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment has long been understood to guarantee U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil — regardless of a child’s parentage, immigration status, nationality, or even their parents’ “allegiance” or “domicile.” This interpretation, they noted, has been consistently upheld for more than a century by the courts, Congress, the executive branch, and legal scholars alike.

Trump’s order specifies that a child is entitled to birthright citizenship if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen. However, if the order were in effect, it would directly affect the children of parents who are both noncitizens.

Several individual plaintiffs in the cases are expectant mothers who said the Trump administration’s decision infringes on the rights of their future children. However, states also contend that the order would create logistical problems and require the creation of new systems to verify a child’s citizenship based on their parent’s immigration status.

So far, lower courts have consistently agreed with the challenging parties.

Four separate district courts and three appeals courts have ruled against the Trump administration’s order since it was issued on Jan. 20, finding it likely violates the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Notably, Trump’s legal team has not asked the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship order — only to scale back the injunctions, which they argued amount to judicial overreach.

Citing historical precedent, the Justice Department said injunctions must be “no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary.” It warned that providing relief to nonparties is “inappropriate when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants.”

However, the states said the nationwide injunctions are essential to preventing a chaotic patchwork of citizenship policies and potential harm to tens of thousands of U.S.-born children.

DOJ SOLICITOR GENERAL CONFIRMED AHEAD OF MAJOR SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWNS

The plaintiffs’ responses were filed in cases known as Washington v. Trump, New Jersey v. Trump, and CASA v. Trump, respectively.

The Supreme Court could decide to act on the Trump administration’s request in the coming days.