President Donald Trump issued two new executive orders targeting birth tourism and other categories of citizenship eligibility after the Supreme Court rejected his broader birthright citizenship policy, while conservative legal groups are organizing a long-term campaign to revisit the constitutional issue.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump has opened a new phase in the battle over birthright citizenship, signing two executive orders aimed at narrowing eligibility in specific circumstances after the Supreme Court rejected his administration’s broader attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.
Trump signed the new directives Thursday, several weeks after the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in Trump v. Barbara. The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that children born in the United States to parents who are illegally or temporarily in the country qualify as citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in the majority.
The administration did not seek rehearing before the deadline expired, leaving new executive action as its immediate avenue for pursuing narrower restrictions. At the same time, Trump’s conservative legal allies have begun developing a longer strategy that could involve legislation, constitutional arguments, judicial nominations and future litigation designed to challenge the prevailing interpretation of birthright citizenship over many years.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately in the Barbara case, concluding that Trump’s earlier order conflicted with federal law while leaving open the possibility that Congress could amend the statute or establish certain exceptions legislatively. His opinion has become a point of focus for conservative legal advocates examining possible next steps, according to a Politico account of a recent strategy gathering. Additional background on the case and ruling is available through SCOTUSblog’s Trump v. Barbara case page.
Trump’s first new directive, titled “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, focuses on children born to foreign diplomatic personnel, people the administration classifies as “alien enemies,” including members of foreign terrorist organizations, and parents accused of using fraud to obtain citizenship-related benefits. A separate White House version of the order outlines the same policy.
The second executive action, titled “Ending Birth Tourism”, directs the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to deny visas to foreign nationals suspected of traveling to the United States primarily for the purpose of giving birth. The administration is attempting to distinguish those narrower categories from the broader policy struck down by the Supreme Court.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, appearing beside Trump in the Oval Office, said the new measures would remove birthright-related benefits from “large numbers of people” whom the administration believes should not qualify under current law.
Beyond the White House, conservative attorneys and former administration officials are treating the Supreme Court defeat as the beginning rather than the end of the issue. At a recent meeting at Bellator Hall near Capitol Hill, organized by the Conservative Partnership Institute and the Immigration Accountability Project, participants discussed ways to continue challenging the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment through scholarship, litigation, legislation and future judicial appointments.
Mike Davis, founder of the Trump-aligned Article III Project, characterized the ruling as the start of a generational legal campaign, calling birthright citizenship “the next Roe v. Wade” and predicting that it could take 50 years to reverse the current constitutional interpretation. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan similarly predicted that increasing academic attention to the issue would keep the legal debate active.
Other participants included Gene Hamilton of America First Legal, Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, Florida Chief Deputy Attorney General Ryan Newman and John Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. The group discussed encouraging law-school scholarship on birthright citizenship, pressing lawmakers to introduce measures ranging from a constitutional amendment to narrower restrictions targeting birth tourism and using opposition to Barbara as a potential test for future judicial nominees.
The strategy reflects an effort to build a sustained legal and political movement around a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment rather than relying on a single executive order or court challenge. Supporters appear prepared to pursue multiple avenues simultaneously, including legislation designed to test how far Congress may go in defining citizenship under existing constitutional language.
Some legal scholars who oppose that effort nevertheless agree that the comparison to the long-running abortion debate may be instructive. New York University law professor Melissa Murray said the new executive orders reflect an incremental Republican strategy to change existing rules over time, according to Politico. Kate Shaw of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School similarly said the emerging fight could resemble the decades-long legal and political campaign over federal constitutional protections for abortion, with one major question being whether progressive groups organize with comparable intensity to defend the Supreme Court’s current interpretation.
For now, the June 30 ruling remains controlling, and Trump’s broad attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders has been rejected by the Supreme Court. The administration’s new approach instead targets narrower categories while conservative legal organizations prepare for what they openly describe as a much longer effort to change the law, the courts or both.
Original article
Comments