President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Thursday aimed at restricting birthright citizenship for the children of individuals who travel to the United States for the purpose of giving birth, a practice commonly referred to as "birth tourism." The new directives follow a June 30 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a previous attempt by the administration to limit citizenship for children born to those in the country illegally or on temporary status.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that all persons born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. In the June ruling, *Trump v. Barbara*, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that this promise extends to every free-born person in the land. Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the decision was so broad it would cover birth tourists, a result he described as a mistake that would affect the country's future.
The first of the new executive orders instructs federal agencies to not recognize the citizenship of a child if either parent engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain that status. The second order seeks to bar visas for foreign nationals suspected of traveling for birth tourism, though the method of enforcement was not specified. Additionally, the administration is seeking to expand historical exceptions to birthright citizenship—currently limited to children of diplomats and occupying foreign troops—to include children of foreign government employees and those designated as foreign terrorists.
The policy change would be noticed most immediately at U.S. embassies and border crossings, where Hiroshi Motomura, a law expert at UCLA, noted that the orders create "huge zones of discretion" for officials to deny entry based on suspicion of intent. The expansion of categories for citizenship exclusion could also affect foreign government workers stationed in the U.S. Legal experts, including University of Virginia professor Amanda Frost, noted that if these employees are excluded from birthright citizenship, the government might be required to grant them higher levels of legal immunity from U.S. law.
The knock-on effects of these orders are likely to manifest in the federal court system. Legal scholars are divided on whether the new definitions—specifically those regarding "alien enemies" or "terrorist organizations"—will be upheld. While some experts, like UC Berkeley's John Yoo, believe the definition of foreign enemy forces could pass constitutional muster, others, like University of Michigan professor Sam Erman, expressed concern that broad definitions could historically be used to deny citizenship to other groups. Legal challenges are expected to follow, though specific court dates have not yet been set.