Press ReleaseUrgent2026-04-01

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS AS ORAL ARGUMENTS CONCLUDE IN TRUMP V. BARBARA

ImmigrationDefense

Context

This press release from Representative Stacey E. Plaskett (D-VI) was published on 2026-04-01 and titled "CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTI". It focuses on immigration and touches on defense.

Full Text

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS AS ORAL ARGUMENTS CONCLUDE IN TRUMP V. BARBARA

For Immediate Release Contact: Alayah Phipps April 1, 2026 202-813-2793 PRESS RELEASE CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS AS ORAL ARGUMENTS CONCLUDE IN TRUMP V. BARBARA Washington, D.C. — Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (D-VI) released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case in which she joined current and former elected officials and judges from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in filing an amicus brief urging the Court to affirm that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee that no executive order can override. At the center of this case is whether the Trump administration can rewrite the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to certain immigrant parents? The amicus brief, signed by leaders across the political spectrum with varying views on territorial status, makes clear that whatever their differences, they stand united against any executive branch attempt to unilaterally redefine who counts as a citizen. The brief draws a troubling comparison to the period following the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the McKinley administration tried to redefine "in the United States" to exclude people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other newly acquired territories. The Supreme Court's deference to the political branches on that question gave rise to the Insular Cases — a legal framework that left millions of territorial residents with statutory, rather than constitutionally protected, citizenship. The effects of that decision are still being felt today. American Samoans, for example, are still classified under federal law as "non-citizen" U.S. nationals — a designation that has cost people military security clearances, created wrongful voter registration complications, and blocked full civic participation. The brief warns that allowing the administration's executive order to stand would deepen that history, handing the executive branch sweeping power over one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. "For the people of the U.S. Territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, this fight is deeply personal. For generations, we have struggled to have our citizenship and our rights fully recognized. The Supreme Court's long avoidance of the birthright citizenship question in the territories has left our residents in an unacceptable state of legal limbo — and now we are watching that same dangerous logic weaponized to strip citizenship from children born on American soil. The Fourteenth Amendment is unambiguous: Those born under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States are Americans. No executive order can change that. The Constitution does not bend to the political preferences of any administration, and no president holds the power to rewrite it by executive order. I am proud to stand alongside leaders across our territories to make that case before the Supreme Court on April 1st," said Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett. BACKGROUND: The amicus brief was coordinated by Right to Democracy, co-founded by Neil C. Weare, and filed on February 26, 2026, by co-counsel Patricio Martinez Llompart and the team at KKL LLP. The signatures urge the Court not to repeat the errors of the past by deferring to the political branches on the scope of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, they call on the Court to affirm, unambiguously, that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right — one that belongs to all persons born under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States, and right that cannot be narrowed by executive or legislative action. ###

View original source →

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS AS ORAL ARGUMENTS CONCLUDE IN TRUMP V. BARBARA For Immediate Release Contact: Alayah Phipps April 1, 2026 202-813-2793 PRESS RELEASE CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT JOINS TERRITORIAL LEADERS BEFORE SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO AFFIRM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS AS ORAL ARGUMENTS CONCLUDE IN TRUMP V. BARBARA Washington, D.C. — Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (D-VI) released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case in which she joined current and former elected officials and judges from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in filing an amicus brief urging the Court to affirm that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee that no executive order can override. At the center of this case is whether the Trump administration can rewrite the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to certain immigrant parents? The amicus brief, signed by leaders across the political spectrum with varying views on territorial status, makes clear that whatever their differences, they stand united against any executive branch attempt to unilaterally redefine who counts as a citizen. The brief draws a troubling comparison to the period following the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the McKinley administration tried to redefine "in the United States" to exclude people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other newly acquired territories. The Supreme Court's deference to the political branches on that question gave rise to the Insular Cases — a legal framework that left millions of territorial residents with statutory, rather than constitutionally protected, citizenship. The effects of that decision are still being felt today. American Samoans, for example, are still classified under federal law as "non-citizen" U.S. nationals — a designation that has cost people military security clearances, created wrongful voter registration complications, and blocked full civic participation. The brief warns that allowing the administration's executive order to stand would deepen that history, handing the executive branch sweeping power over one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. "For the people of the U.S. Territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, this fight is deeply personal. For generations, we have struggled to have our citizenship and our rights fully recognized. The Supreme Court's long avoidance of the birthright citizenship question in the territories has left our residents in an unacceptable state of legal limbo — and now we are watching that same dangerous logic weaponized to strip citizenship from children born on American soil. The Fourteenth Amendment is unambiguous: Those born under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States are Americans. No executive order can change that. The Constitution does not bend to the political preferences of any administration, and no president holds the power to rewrite it by executive order. I am proud to stand alongside leaders across our territories to make that case before the Supreme Court on April 1st," said Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett. BACKGROUND: The amicus brief was coordinated by Right to Democracy, co-founded by Neil C. Weare, and filed on February 26, 2026, by co-counsel Patricio Martinez Llompart and the team at KKL LLP. The signatures urge the Court not to repeat the errors of the past by deferring to the political branches on the scope of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, they call on the Court to affirm, unambiguously, that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right — one that belongs to all persons born under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States, and right that cannot be narrowed by executive or legislative action. ###