Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) criticized the Supreme Court on CNN’s Laura Coates Live Friday, arguing that its recent decision on nationwide injunctions concerning birthright citizenship was wrong and could create legal chaos across state lines.
Tong acknowledged that both political parties have at times misused nationwide injunctions, but said this case demands uniformity. “We’ve complained about that and the aggressive use of nationwide injunctions by the other side,” he said, referencing GOP efforts to secure nationwide rulings on abortion drugs and gun laws.
“But not in this case,” he added. “The Supreme Court got it wrong.” Tong emphasized that issues like birthright citizenship cannot be governed on a state-by-state basis, especially in a mobile society where people regularly cross state lines.
He used the example of a pregnant woman from New Jersey delivering her child unexpectedly in Pennsylvania. “What happens to that baby when they come back to New Jersey two days later?” Tong asked. “Is that child a citizen? Is that child eligible for Medicaid, public education, health care?”
The Court’s decision raises questions about the legal rights of newborns across state borders, especially for emergency births or travel-related deliveries. Tong warned that patchwork enforcement could lead to confusion over basic citizenship rights and access to public services.
Democrats have historically criticized the use of nationwide injunctions but argue they are necessary in cases with national implications. Tong’s comments highlight the broader concern that inconsistent rulings across states could destabilize constitutional guarantees.
Critics argue the Supreme Court’s decision undermines federal uniformity in immigration-related rights, especially in a nation where people frequently move between states. Without a consistent standard for birthright citizenship, questions about a child’s legal status could vary dramatically depending on where the child is born, raising serious constitutional and logistical concerns.
Supporters of the ruling contend that limiting nationwide injunctions prevents lower courts from wielding outsized influence on national policy. They argue that such sweeping decisions should be left to Congress or higher courts, not individual federal judges. However, Tong and others say this logic fails when it comes to rights that, by their nature, must be applied uniformly across the country.
