State Attorneys General Diverge on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

On January 23, 2025, Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a TRO in one of two cases (in Massachusetts and Washington federal courts) brought by attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin implementation of a Trump Administration Executive Order concerning “automatic” birthright citizenship. The Order, set to take effect on February 19, 2025, absent an injunction, directed federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to those born in the United States to a mother who is unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In advance of preliminary injunction hearings in the Western District of Washington scheduled for February 6, 2025, a second group of 18 state attorneys general have filed an amici curiae brief in that district, opposing the preliminary injunction being sought by the other AGs. The amici AGs opposing the injunction includes the Attorneys General of Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming.

On February 5, 2025, Judge Deborah Boardman of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted a nationwide injunction halting the Executive Order in a separate suit brought by immigration advocacy groups. The preliminary injunction hearings in the two cases brought by the state AGs are still scheduled to go forward.

State Attorneys General File Suit Challenging President Trump’s Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans; D.C. District Court Judge Temporarily Blocks Freeze

On January 28, 2025, attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeking a temporary restraining order against the Trump Administration’s proposed spending freeze on federal grants and loans. The state attorneys general include New York, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed pause on federal spending violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious, the Separation of Powers doctrine because it usurps the legislative function, and the Spending, Presentment, Appropriations, and Take Care Clauses of the United States Constitution.

Also on January 28, 2025, several nonprofit organizations, led by the National Council of Nonprofits, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a temporary restraining order “to maintain the status quo until the Court has an opportunity to more fully consider the illegality of OMB’s actions.” The plaintiffs allege that the OMB’s proposed spending freeze violates the Administrative Procedure, is contrary to the First Amendment, and exceeds OMB’s statutory authority.  Judge Loren AliKhan—just one day after OMB issued the temporary pause, and shortly before it was to take effect—temporarily blocked the proposed pause, preventing the Trump Administration from implementing the spending freeze. Judge AliKhan’s temporary order will remain in effect until February 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm.


Coalition of State Attorneys General Supports Registry of Consumer Protection Law Violations

On June 11, 2024, the attorneys general of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont wrote a letter to Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in support of the CFPB’s Nonbank Registration of Orders Rule. The Rule, which becomes effective September 16, 2024, will require nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services to register with the CFPB all final orders issued by courts or by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies finding violations of consumer protection laws. The CFPB will use this information to compile a searchable online registry available to the public. Failure to register will be a violation of federal consumer financial law subject to CFPB enforcement, and remedies include potential civil monetary penaltie

In their letter, the state attorneys general stated that they support the Rule because the registry will enable them to spot emerging problems and engage in early prevention efforts.  They also believe that the registry will be useful in prioritizing certain targets of investigations over others, targeting state-level or regional actors that might not draw attention from federal agencies, and negotiating resolutions with entities engaged in similar conduct.

Nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services should ensure that they are in compliance with the Rule following its effective date. Such entities should also be aware that the registry could result in increased enforcement from the CFPB and state attorneys general. As the state attorneys general point out in their letter, the registry may also be useful to such entities in identifying instances of specific conduct that courts or agencies have previously determined to be unlawful, deceptive, unfair, or abusive, and to shape their own marketing and compliance efforts accordingly.

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress