WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a critical case that could redefine the meaning of citizenship in America, as justices grappled with the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for certain children born on U.S. soil.
The case, Trump v. Barbara was heard at a moment of constitutional tension, testing the scope of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and raising the possibility of a seismic shift in immigration law, national identity, and the boundaries of executive power.
A chief contention is the Constitution’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are citizens extends to children born to undocumented immigrants or individuals in the country on temporary visas.
For more than a century, courts and policymakers have largely accept that the constitution provides near-universal birthright citizenship. Trump’s executive order challenges longstanding policy.
The arguments, which lasted more than two hours, revealed a court deeply engaged if not divided with the constitutional and historical stakes.
Several justices, including members of the court’s conservative majority, expressed skepticism toward the administration’s position, even as they pressed both sides with probing questions that demonstrated the complexity of the case.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who is widely viewed as a pivotal vote, sharply pushed back on the administration’s suggestion that modern migration realities justify reinterpreting the Constitution.
“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” he said during the proceedings.
President Donald Trump attended part of the argument, an unusual presence that highlighted the rare and highly charged nature of the hearing.
His presence marked a rare direct involvement by a sitting president in Supreme Court proceedings reflecting the political and constitutional stakes.
Outside, demonstrators gathered in large numbers, arguing that the case as a fundamental test of equality and inclusion.
Inside, the justices returned repeatedly to the central legal question: what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended when they adopted the citizenship clause in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
Legal advocates challenged the order arguing that the amendment’s language, bolstered by more than a century of precedent, leaves little room for reinterpretation.
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized that birthright citizenship is a settled constitutional guarantee.
“All of us born in this country are Americans, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment,” Wang said. “We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.”
Other civil rights advocates echoed that position, warning that the administration’s approach would destabilize long-standing legal principles and create a permanent class of people denied full citizenship rights.
“Birthright citizenship has been clearly protected for well over a century by the plain text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and congressional enactment,” said Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund. “If this indisputable legal principle is up for grabs, so is anything in the Constitution and American law.”
The administration, however, has argued that the citizenship clause has been misinterpreted and that it was never intended to apply to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
Central to its argument is a reinterpretation of the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a man born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents.
Several justices focused on that precedent, particularly the role of the concept of “domicile” in the Court’s earlier ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned why the term appeared repeatedly in the opinion, suggesting it might have greater legal significance than challengers to the executive order acknowledge.
“What are those 20 ‘domicile’ words doing there?” Kagan asked during the argument.
Chief Justice Roberts similarly pressed the issue, asking whether the repeated references to domicile could be dismissed as irrelevant.
The administration’s theory hinges in part on the idea that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanent residents, or “domiciled,” in the United States, distinguishing that case from the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders.
Advocates challenging the order argue that such distinctions have no basis in the Constitution’s text or subsequent legal interpretations.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that the Court might resolve the case without directly addressing the Constitution, pointing instead to federal statutory law. He noted that a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also guarantees citizenship to those born in the United States.
“Our usual practice… is to resolve things on statutory grounds and not to do a constitutional ground,” Kavanaugh said, outlining a potential narrower path for the Court.
If upheld, the executive order could reshape millions of lives and fundamentally alter the nation’s demographic and legal landscape.
According to research cited in reporting surrounding the case, eliminating birthright citizenship could result in millions of U.S.-born children lacking legal status by midcentury, creating what some scholars describe as a multigenerational underclass.
Opponents of the order warn that such a shift would destabilize families, disrupt labor markets, and undermine core democratic principles.
“We are fighting this cruel executive order to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected instead of being relegated to a permanent, multigenerational subclass,” said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire.
Civil rights organizations, faith groups, and state officials have lined up against the administration’s position, filing amicus briefs and public statements emphasizing the historical and moral significance of birthright citizenship.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) warned that dismantling the guarantee would “upend the Constitution” and threaten the status of countless Americans, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the principle as foundational to the nation’s democratic identity.
“Birthright citizenship is foundational to American democracy,” Bonta said. “It’s the promise that any child born here is equal under American law.”
Advocates with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights emphasized the human consequences of the policy, arguing that it would tear families apart and strip individuals of legal identity.
“In Trump v. Barbara, what’s at stake is tearing families apart, leaving countless individuals stateless,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA. “The executive order was not merely unlawful; it contradicts the very principles of equality and fairness that our nation upholds.”
Even as the justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s position, the outcome remains uncertain.
The questioning suggested that, while a majority may be wary of overturning long-standing precedent, the Court is also attentive to narrower legal arguments that could shape the scope of any ruling.
The broader political context adds another layer of complexity. Birthright citizenship, once considered a settled and largely apolitical issue, has become increasingly contested in recent decades, reflecting broader divisions over immigration and national identity.
For much of American history, the principle has been viewed as a cornerstone of equality, rooted in the post-Civil War effort to establish citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The 14th Amendment was explicitly designed to overturn the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans.
Over time, the amendment’s guarantee has been interpreted to apply broadly, encompassing generations of immigrants and their children. That interpretation has been reinforced by both judicial decisions and legislative enactments, creating what many legal scholars describe as one of the most stable and widely accepted principles in constitutional law.
The Trump administration’s challenge represents a significant departure from that tradition, reviving arguments that were once considered fringe but have gained traction in some conservative legal circles.
The Court’s decision, expected by late June or early July, will not only determine the fate of the executive order but could also redefine the scope of constitutional protections in ways that extend far beyond immigration.
The stakes, advocates warn, reach far beyond immigration policy to the stability of the Constitution itself.
“If this indisputable legal principle is up for grabs, so is anything in the Constitution and American law,” said Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, underscoring the broader fear that a ruling in favor of the executive order could unsettle more than a century of settled legal doctrine and redefine the boundaries of presidential power.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Sorry, but the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to someone who’s visiting our country or to the “birth tourism” industries of the world.
AI Overview
Estimates suggest that hundreds to over 1,000 Chinese companies have operated or facilitated birth tourism to the United States. These businesses, often referred to as “maternity hotels” or postpartum care centers, specialized in helping wealthy Chinese nationals obtain U.S. citizenship for their children by giving birth in the U.S..
Key details on the scale of these operations include:
Company Volume: Some reports indicated as many as 500 birth tourism companies were operating from China as early as 2015. Other estimates, mentioned in Congressional hearings, suggested more than 1,000 companies specifically targeted the US.
Operations & Scope: These firms operated in areas like Southern California and Saipan, providing housing, nannies, and assistance with, or coaching for, visa applications to bypass U.S. immigration scrutiny.
Scale of Activity: While some estimates suggest high volume, official statistics showed 27,476 births to Chinese-born mothers in 2023, though this includes residents already in the US. Other, more limited reports indicated that while thousands of such births occurred, the number of “birth tourists” was sometimes estimated by experts to be lower than sensationalist reports, around 20,000-26,000 annually at peak.
Crackdowns: Federal authorities have engaged in massive raids and investigations into these companies, such as in 2015, and in 2024, when operators were convicted of conspiracy and money laundering.
The industry is frequently associated with illegal, unlicensed businesses that provide fraudulent documentation, often operating under the guise of legitimate travel or postpartum care services.
LOL. Who needs lawyers and judges when you have AI freeware
David, do you use A.I. when you write your articles?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who is widely viewed as a pivotal vote, sharply pushed back on the administration’s suggestion that modern migration realities justify reinterpreting the Constitution.
Roberts from the article: “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who is widely viewed as a pivotal vote, sharply pushed back on the administration’s suggestion that modern migration realities justify reinterpreting the Constitution.
The Solicitor General was unable to define the scope of the problem of people coming here to give birth.
“Estimates suggest that hundreds to over 1,000 Chinese companies have operated or facilitated birth tourism to the United States.”
There is no evidence for this assertion.
“Some reports indicated as many as 500 birth tourism companies were operating from China as early as 2015.”
There is no evidence for this assertion.
“Federal authorities have engaged in massive raids and investigations”
This is a subjective term. There is no evidence provided that justifies use of the term “massive”.
“The industry is frequently associated with illegal, unlicensed businesses”
No evidence is provided for this assertion.
You are posting garbage and you’re too lazy to even bother to provide the references or validate it.
Don: In the time it took you to write and post that comment, you could have easily found information about this yourself. Here’s a couple that took a few seconds to find (and there’s many more).
https://www.pbs.org/pov/films/howtohaveanamericanbaby/
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/supreme-court-birth-tourism-birthright-citizenship.html
“There is no official tally of babies born to tourists on American soil. In its most recent estimate in 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports restricting immigration, put the number at around 20,000 to 26,000 babies a year.
That is less than 1 percent of the number of babies born in the United States in 2020, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ”
That’s from the NY Times article. What’s interesting is: (A) the number comes from an org likely to distort the impact and (B) the number is still extremely low in comparison with the totality of births – so is that a statistic that should cause us to change the law? And that ignores whether it can be done with an executive order when the right is enshrined in the constitution.
DG say, “the number comes from an org likely to distort the impact”
There is no evidence for this assertion :-|
“you could have easily found information about this yourself.”
Not my job. I didn’t post something generated by ai.
When you say things like “There is no evidence for this assertion” it becomes your “job” to back up that claim. Even more so if you’re going to then put forth claims that are knowingly false.
This issue was widely reported in the media (including on PBS and the New York Times, as I just noted).
As for numbers, it seems more likely that those in the country illegally are responsible for most of the “birthright citizenships”. (More so than “birth tourism”.)
“When you say things like “There is no evidence for this assertion” it becomes your “job” to back up that claim.”
My job to prove a negative? No.
Anything presented as a fact by an ai product should never be posted without the supporting reference or independent evidence. It is entirely the responsibility of the person using ai products to verify the output.
Anything presented as analysis by an ai product should be understood to be likely based on faulty evidence and with an understanding that these programs are incapable of nuance. More important, they cannot deal with varying degrees of confidence. If analysis leads to conflicting output, it has to choose. It might choose right, or it might choose wrong. LLM’s don’t know. Yet your ai product presents that choice with the same confidence, in the same narrative tone, as fully evidenced output.
In our field (horticulture), the output is highly variable but nearly always contains significant errors. But you need to be an expert to know that it’s wrong. That’s a big part of the problem. Ai products may be useful to experts who will then review the output. Other than that, these products range from amusingly to harmfully wrong a significant percentage of the time.
Anyone who uses ai for writing is taking a huge risk of inadvertent plagiarism, factual errors, and un-evidenced analysis. That’s why the NY Times just dropped a book reviewer for blatant plagiarism via ai use, and why the Wikipedia editorial board voted to prohibit use of LLM’s for creating content.
You guys can argue about the scope of the problem but the Solicitor General of the United States couldn’t define the scope of the problem when asked by the Chief Justice of the United States. If you were Roberts would you support such an extraordinarily broad remedy to such an undefined problem? Remember the Supremes will decide this based on the record presented.
“The State Department has announced new rules to address birth tourism, which is the controversial practice of entering the United States to give birth so that the child will acquire U.S. citizenship. The prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting nearly all those born here U.S. citizenship (and the ability to pass it on to their children and to sponsor relatives for green cards) has become a magnet and spawned a lucrative birth tourism industry, attracting families from all over the world. This industry has grown largely without debate in Congress or the consent of the public.”
“Tourists who come to the United States to give birth and receive taxpayer-funded public assistance to cover the associated costs of their births or have the expenses waived by a hospital do not have to pay back any of the funds in order to get a future tourist visa.”
“Chinese citizens do not require a visa to visit certain U.S. territories, such as the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The birth tourism industry is rampant there, with more annual births to Chinese visitors than native residents.
Some legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit the children of illegal aliens or legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.”
https://cis.org/CIS/Birth-Tourism-Facts-and-Recommendations#:~:text=CIS%20estimates%20that%20birth%20tourism,or%20present%20on%20temporary%20visas.
“Some legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit the children of illegal aliens or legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.”
Barring a last minute surprise, the court is poised to reject this argument
cis.org? Right.
From Wikipedia:
“The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration[3][4][5][6][7] think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA. CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025.
Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration,[8] which cited the group’s work to defend its immigration policies.[9] The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement.[10]”
“Barring a last minute surprise, the court is poised to reject this argument”
I don’t doubt that.
So now you’re all on board with the conservative majority SCOTUS?
I view as too far out there even for a Supreme Court with six conservatives on it
“The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group ”
SPLC is rated far left by Allsides media bias and ratings system.
“An independent review conducted by an AllSides team member found that the SPLC deserves a Left rating. The review found that SPLC focuses almost exclusively on issues associated with the political left, and will sometimes publish stories supporting Democratic Party policies or agenda items. SPLC rarely, if ever, does this for Republican causes.”
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/southern-poverty-law-center-media-bias
“SPLC is rated far left by Allsides media bias and ratings system.”
At this point, SPLC is viewed as a “hate group” by normal people. As is the ACLU. :-)
Or at the very least, organizations that no longer serve any valid purpose (the SPLC), or have lost their way (the ACLU).
The latter is also true regarding the majority of environmental-protection organizations (who somehow think that social justice is related to that). At this point, some environmental organizations seem more interested in social justice (and a fixation on Trump) than they do on the natural environment itself.
But it does seem that a fixation on Trump (and social justice) “sells tickets”, so to speak. Or so they think . . .
“Sorry, but the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to someone who’s visiting our country or to the ‘birth tourism’ industries of the world.”
As Scalia would have told you about both originalism and textualism the simple answer is to change the constitution not overturn the constitution through executive order.
“As Scalia would have told you about both originalism and textualism the simple answer is to change the constitution not overturn the constitution through executive order.”
That’s true. But just yesterday, Matt Stone accurately noted how difficult this is to accomplish (including for “valid” reasons). (Which is probably why Trump tried to find a way around that.)
There is no valid justification for “birthright citizenship”. They should be citizens of the same country as their parents. The current law ENCOURAGES the opposite (though I’m not sure if the kids then have dual citizenship).
“There is no valid justification for “birthright citizenship””
Except for the 14th amendment.
You’re conflating law with validity.
Amendments themselves are examples of the reasons that the Constitution isn’t perfect.
There’s an example of one amendment “overturning” another amendment (regarding prohibition).
The law is the current justification. If you change the law, the justification goes.
“Feds Raid California ‘Maternity Hotels’ for Birth Tourists
Federal agents in California raided 20 “maternity hotels,” where Chinese women allegedly paid $40,000 to $80,000 to give birth in the U.S. for citizenship.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-raid-l-maternity-hotel-birth-tourists-n315996
Article from 2015… in 2020, the U.S. restricted tourist visas for people suspected of traveling primarily to give birth
Is there an estimate of the number of “birthright citizenship” cases for those living in the U.S. illegally? (In other words, not referring to parents who aren’t simply engaging in “birthright tourism”?)
(Referring to the 11 million or so illegal immigrants living in the U.S. This is likely where the substantially larger problem is, of course.)
I can’t even imagine the nerve it takes to illegally emigrate to another country, and then expect that country to make me and my future kids citizens as a “right”.
“Rancho Cucamonga Man and Woman Found Guilty of Federal Criminal Charges in Connection with ‘Birth Tourism’ Scheme”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/rancho-cucamonga-man-and-woman-found-guilty-federal-criminal-charges-connection-birth
Still seems more reasonable to crack down on specific cases of abuse – you’re causing a lot of disruption to address a relatively low number of people that doesn’t really impact anyone.
But I see your tune changed because it’s still happening.
No I just pointed out the flaws of citing a 10 year old article. My view has always been that this is not a problem sufficient to change the constitution. See my 8:01 comment
You change the law (primarily) based on the 11 million or so immigrants living in the country illegally.
But it would also eliminate the problem created by birthright tourism.
Again, the far larger problem is created by the 11 million illegal immigrants having kids who are then automatic citizens of the U.S.
There is no valid reason for birthright citizenship, and there is no reason to avoid an amendment to end it.
Then that should be the approach. What Trump tried to do is not how to do this. (I’m not agreeing with your conclusion, simply stating the proper policy approach).
Trump will lose, regarding this type of attempt.
Though perhaps he’s attempting this to bring attention to the issue. (Seems like that’s not working well-enough, either. There’s apparently a substantial number of Americans who support illegal immigration out of self-interest, or for moral reasons – as they view it.)
“There’s apparently a substantial number of Americans who support illegal immigration out of self-interest,”
Exactly Ron, Democrats need the votes.
Most people who support or oppose a given policy do so out of self-interest.
Also undocumented immigrants are not generally a pathway to voting. So that claim is probably false.
Trump better not win. This country being run on executive order is vile, no matter who does it. Doing this for a constitutional amendment is vile. But typical Trump tactics. On the other hand, the amendment should be sharpened to protect the persons it was originally intended to protect, and be reworded to end birth tourism. Very few countries allow this, and neither should US. But Congress is worthless, so fixing them comes first. Waiting. Still waiting.
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who is widely viewed as a pivotal vote, sharply pushed back on the administration’s suggestion that modern migration realities justify reinterpreting the Constitution. ”
That, by the way, is the same position the court has taken against gun control because of the second amendment. The founders could have never imagined a high powered automatic rifle with a thirty shot clip or a plane full of pregnant women desperate to give their babies a better life.
The founders also never established a right to abortion.
If Congress was actually functional, there’s quite a few issues that they could “clarify” based upon popular opinion.
One of the primary reasons Trump won is because a majority in this country don’t support illegal immigration. Though there is a sizable minority who do, one way or another.
It becomes less clear, depending on the question asked (e.g., “do you support a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally?” Or, “should illegal immigrants be forcefully repatriated with their own countries?” And “what about their kids, who were born in this country or emmigrated with their parents – illegally (but through no fault of their own)”?
I personally don’t view these questions as difficult to answer.