Colorado AG Phil Weiser Hails Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Ruling

“If you are born in this country, you are a U.S. citizen.”

That’s the bottom line, according to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who didn’t mince words when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Tuesday. He called the president’s executive order a move made with “blatant disregard for the Constitution,” and honestly, it’s hard to argue with him when you look at the text of the 14th Amendment itself. It’s plain, it’s clear, and it’s been the bedrock of American identity for over a century.

The high court voted 6-3 to reject the order, a decision that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority that included both conservatives and liberals. It wasn’t just the usual ideological split; Roberts joined the liberal bloc to uphold the long-standing right, while Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented, voting to allow the restrictions. Those restrictions would have stripped citizenship from children born here to parents in the country illegally or on temporary visas, like students or tourists.

Think about what that actually means for the folks living here on the Western Slope, and across the state. We joined the fight on the second day of the new administration’s term. Colorado was part of a coalition of 18 states that sued in Federal District Court in Massachusetts, arguing that this wasn’t just a policy tweak — it was a fundamental shift in who gets to be an American. The lawsuit claimed the order would strip citizenship from thousands of babies born in Colorado, denying them Social Security numbers, access to federal programs, the ability to get passports, or even serve on juries later in life.

“It’s astonishing that we had to fight this case because the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is so plainly clear,” Weiser said in a June 30 news release. You can feel the frustration in that statement. It’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder why we ever had to go to court in the first place. Why did it take a Supreme Court ruling to confirm what’s been written in ink since 1868?

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet put it another way, calling birthright citizenship a “cornerstone of our Constitution” that rests on the belief that all Americans are equal under the law. He noted that just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to question its legality. Now, it’s been tested, and it has held.

The victory wasn’t just theoretical. The coalition obtained nationwide preliminary injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect, meaning the status quo remains. Children born to parents with student visas or tourist visas are still citizens. Children born to undocumented immigrants are still citizens. The basic rights attached to that status — healthcare, education, the ability to work legally, to vote, to run for office, remain intact.

There’s a sense of relief in the air, certainly, but also a lingering awareness of the cost. We spent months in court, lawyers argued, briefs were filed, and the federal judiciary worked through the backlog. But for now, the ruling stands. The executive order is dead in the water, at least for the moment.

You can still see the outlines of the debate in the dissent. Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas weren’t just voting no; they were signaling a different vision of what citizenship means, one that ties it more tightly to the parents’ status than the soil itself. But Roberts and the majority stuck to the text. They stuck to the precedent. And in a state that prides itself on its legal heritage, that’s a comfort.

The sun was setting over the Grand Junction courthouse yesterday, casting long shadows across the brickwork, as Weiser’s office released the statement. It’s a quiet moment after a loud decision. The lawyers are packing up their briefcases. The clerks are filing the paperwork. And out on the streets, a new baby is being born, and she is, for now, a citizen.