What Happened?

The Supreme Court ruled in June that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily are citizens at birth, a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling, in a case called *Trump v. Barbara*, blocked the administration's first executive order attempting to restrict that automatic citizenship.

House Republicans responded by holding a hearing before the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government on Sept. 2, exploring whether Congress could pass a law to narrow who qualifies for citizenship at birth. The administration has also continued testing new restrictions. President Donald Trump issued a second executive order in August targeting additional categories of U.S.-born children, but a federal judge in Maryland blocked it, citing the Supreme Court's earlier ruling.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

If you or your family members were born in the United States to parents who were not citizens or permanent residents, this debate directly concerns your citizenship status. The Supreme Court's ruling currently protects that status, but Congress is now weighing whether legislation could change the rules going forward.

The hearing also touched on immigration benefits that flow through U.S.-born children. One witness urged Congress to restrict certain benefits for non-immigrant visa holders who claim assistance on behalf of their American-born children. That would affect families on temporary visas, including work and student visas, who have children born here.

Both Sides, Now

Four witnesses testified at the Sept. 2 hearing, and they did not agree.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and Center for Renewing America Senior Fellow Ken Cuccinelli argued that Congress retains authority to define the Fourteenth Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" more narrowly, which could tie automatic citizenship more closely to a parent's immigration status. Immigration Accountability Project Policy Director Rosemary Jenks agreed, urging lawmakers to pursue statutory restrictions and legislation targeting birth tourism and international surrogacy.

On the other side, Jonathan Weinberg, a law professor at Wayne State University, defended the Court's ruling and argued that birthright citizenship is constitutionally guaranteed to nearly all people born in the United States, regardless of their parents' status. His testimony emphasized that the right derives from the text, history, and longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Democrats and constitutional scholars argue that a statute attempting to deny citizenship to children the Court has already ruled are citizens would face a direct conflict with that ruling.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who chairs the subcommittee, has argued Congress should define the jurisdiction clause more narrowly. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) serves as ranking member of the full House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

The hearing also included claims about the scale of birth tourism, including estimates that hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals may hold U.S. citizenship obtained through birth tourism and that hundreds of Chinese companies market such services. Those figures were presented during the hearing but are estimates, not established federal statistics.

What Happens Next?

The full House Judiciary Committee could take up legislation addressing birth tourism, immigration benefits, or the statutory meaning of the citizenship clause. No vote has been scheduled. Any bill that passed Congress and was signed into law would almost certainly face legal challenges, given the Supreme Court's June ruling. The administration is also continuing to defend its August executive order in court, and that litigation could eventually return the issue to the Supreme Court.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article