In a bold and sharply worded statement, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on birthright citizenship, calling the decision “disappointing, unlawful, and wrong.” The controversial decision has triggered nationwide debate, with legal experts, civil rights groups, and public officials weighing in on its constitutional and humanitarian implications.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, delivered on June 27, 2025, limits the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts. Although the Court did not overturn the lower court’s finding that President Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, it determined that lower courts had overstepped by applying nationwide blocks. Instead, such injunctions should now be narrowly tailored, unless broader relief is essential to protect the specific plaintiffs.
Attorney General Brown argued that this limitation undermines the ability of states like Washington to shield their residents from harmful federal actions. “This ruling doesn’t change the fact that the executive order is both unlawful and wrong,” Brown stated. “But it does make it harder to ensure that all affected individuals receive the full protection they deserve.”
Brown emphasized that the original federal district court ruling had already declared the executive order in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil. He noted that Washington’s legal challenge was based on real harm to its residents and public institutions—making the case for broad injunctive relief entirely justified.
While the Supreme Court ruling technically allows national injunctions in exceptional circumstances, Brown expressed concern that it creates confusion and inconsistency across state lines. “If federal law is struck down in one state but remains enforceable in another, it puts families and communities in legal limbo,” he warned.
Despite the setback, Brown pledged to continue fighting to protect birthright citizenship. He confirmed that his office would pursue every available legal avenue, including state-specific injunctions and multi-state coalitions, to push back against what he called a “cruel and unconstitutional agenda.”
Civil rights advocates echoed Brown’s sentiment, warning that the ruling opens the door to selective enforcement of federal policies—especially on issues involving immigration, healthcare, and civil liberties. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a blistering dissent, stated that the Court’s decision “puts the rights of millions at risk.”
What’s Next?
With the decision in place, legal experts say states now face a 30-day window to restructure their legal strategies. Lawsuits may shift toward class action models or state-level protections to reestablish broader coverage. For now, Washington remains at the forefront of the resistance.
