Trump's New Birth Tourism Orders Face Likely Legal Rejection
Legal experts say Trump's new executive orders targeting birth tourism are likely to be struck down, following the Supreme Court's June ruling on birthright citizenship.
President Donald Trump has signed two new executive orders aimed at curbing so-called 'birth tourism,' but legal experts say the central provisions are likely to be invalidated by the Supreme Court's recent ruling on birthright citizenship.
The orders, signed on Thursday, direct federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children if a parent is engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship, and seek to bar visas for foreigners suspected of coming to the U.S. to give birth.
These actions follow a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in June that struck down Trump's earlier attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. In that ruling, the court affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion, noted the ruling was broad enough to cover children born to women who come to the U.S. solely for the purpose of giving birth.
Legal scholars point out that the new orders target a category of people the Supreme Court has already addressed. "These children are citizens based on their birth on U.S. soil," said University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost. "Illegal conduct by their parent can have no bearing on their status."
The new orders also attempt to expand historical exceptions to birthright citizenship, which currently include children of diplomats and hostile foreign troops. The administration wants to widen these categories to include foreign government employees and individuals deemed foreign terrorists.
Scholars are divided on whether these expansions could survive legal scrutiny. Some argue that broadening the diplomat exception could be legal if implemented carefully, while others contend the definitions are too elastic and could lead to arbitrary enforcement.
White House aides defended the orders, with Staff Secretary Will Scharf stating they do not conflict with the Supreme Court's opinions. However, several legal experts disagree, with some calling the new exclusions "clearly unconstitutional."
"This order seems like a desperate measure by a president who is having a hard time accepting that he just suffered a significant loss at the Supreme Court," said Northeastern University law professor Rachel Rosenbloom.