{"id":38987,"date":"2026-08-11T17:35:52","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T12:35:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/?p=38987"},"modified":"2026-08-11T17:35:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T12:35:52","slug":"trump-is-looking-for-the-courts-breaking-point-on-birthright-citizenship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/?p=38987","title":{"rendered":"Trump is looking for the Court\u2019s breaking point on birthright citizenship"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script>\r\n  atOptions = {\r\n    'key' : '644b717812d811d6a1c1fc5b6ccd6fa6',\r\n    'format' : 'iframe',\r\n    'height' : 90,\r\n    'width' : 728,\r\n    'params' : {}\r\n  };\r\n<\/script>\r\n<script src=\"https:\/\/www.highperformanceformat.com\/644b717812d811d6a1c1fc5b6ccd6fa6\/invoke.js\"><\/script>\r\n<br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div id=\"zephr-anchor\">\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Last week, President Donald Trump issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2026\/08\/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship\/?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email\">new executive order<\/a> that purports to strip citizenship from some Americans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">This isn\u2019t our first time here: Last year, Trump issued an executive order that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/immigration\/395945\/donald-trump-unconstitutional-birthright-citizenship-illegal\">attempted to strip citizenship<\/a> from many Americans born in this country. Months later, in response to a lawsuit brought over Trump\u2019s order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that everyone born in the United States who is subject to US law is a citizen. The Court\u2019s decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25-365_4hdj.pdf\"><em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em><\/a> (2026) was hardly a surprise, as the Court first ruled that everyone born in the US and subject to its laws are citizens in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/169\/649\/\"><em>United States v. Wong Kim Ark<\/em><\/a> (1898).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Still, the <em>Barbara<\/em> decision did invalidate an executive order from Trump. And <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2026\/07\/trump-administration-appears-not-to-have-asked-supreme-court-to-rehear-birthright-citizenship-ca\/\">that made him very angry<\/a>. The new order appears to be a response to that 2025 Supreme Court decision, though it is much narrower than his original one.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">In this sense, Trump appears to be experimenting with where the line is for the justices when it comes to birthright citizenship. When Trump\u2019s first order came before the Court in <em>Barbara<\/em>, there was more than a century of precedent establishing that the order was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, four justices voted to overrule at least some of that precedent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Now, with the new order, Trump is testing whether a smaller bite at the apple is enough to win over one of the justices who voted with the majority in <em>Barbara<\/em> \u2014 two of whom are Republicans. If he manages to hold onto the four dissenters in <em>Barbara<\/em> and pick up just one more justice\u2019s vote, his new order will stand. It\u2019s a plausible outcome, and one that could potentially foreshadow future efforts to chip away at birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p><h2 class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup\">What does the order actually do?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Trump\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2025\/01\/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship\/\">first citizenship order<\/a>, the one struck down in <em>Barbara<\/em>, attempted to strip citizenship from many Americans whose mothers were either undocumented or legally-but-temporarily present in the United States when they were born. Had this order been in effect at their birth, it would have stripped citizenship from many prominent Americans, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/immigration\/395945\/donald-trump-unconstitutional-birthright-citizenship-illegal\">including former Vice President Kamala Harris<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The new order, entitled \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2026\/08\/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship\/?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email\">Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship<\/a>\u201d is much narrower; indeed, it\u2019s unclear some of the categories of people it hopes to denaturalize actually exist. The new order, for example, purports to strip citizenship from children of two non-citizen parents when either parent belongs to a \u201cdesignated Foreign Terrorist Organization.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">So, in the unlikely event that, say, a member of Al-Qaeda impregnated a non-US citizen woman who later gave birth on US soil, Trump\u2019s order would mandate that the child\u2019s US citizenship would be taken away.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Another provision purports to strip citizenship from the children of foreign nationals who work in their nation\u2019s embassies or in similar diplomatic capacities but who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity from US law. Again, it\u2019s unlikely that all that many children fall into this category, given the relatively small number of these jobs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The largest group of people that Trump targets in his new order is children whose parents \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2026\/08\/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship\/\">engage in a commercial transaction<\/a> to ensure that the person\u2019s mother is present in the United States\u201d for their birth, such as by buying a plane ticket to enter the United States while pregnant. But this category is also fairly small.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">In 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.factcheck.org\/2026\/04\/what-do-we-know-about-birth-tourism\/\">9,576 people<\/a> were born in the United States to residents of foreign countries \u2014 out of about 3.6 million annual births \u2014 though it is unclear how many of these babies would be affected by Trump\u2019s new executive order, because we don\u2019t know if their mothers entered the United States \u201cto ensure\u201d that their child we be on US soil when born.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p><h2 class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup\">So, what does the Constitution actually say about birthright citizenship?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The question of whether people born in the United States are citizens was, until fairly recently, one of the most uncontroversial questions in US law. When Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, handed down the first court decision blocking Trump\u2019s original attack on birthright citizenship, he commented that he\u2019d \u201cbeen on the bench for over four decades [and]\u2026can\u2019t remember another case <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/immigration\/395945\/donald-trump-unconstitutional-birthright-citizenship-illegal\">where the question presented is as clear as this one is<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The relevant provision of the Constitution\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/amendmentxiv\">14th Amendment<\/a> provides that \u201call persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.\u201d So, everyone born in the US, regardless of their parent\u2019s immigration status, past behavior, or membership in a particular organization are citizens \u2014 unless they are not \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d of the United States.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">As the Court recently reaffirmed in <em>Barbara<\/em>, moreover, a child is within US jurisdiction if they are \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25-365_4hdj.pdf\">subject to American law<\/a>.\u201d So, if undocumented immigrants and their children were not subject to US jurisdiction, that would mean that it was illegal to arrest and deport them. And, if members of foreign terrorist organizations were not subject to US law, that would mean that it is illegal for the US government to prosecute them for committing terrorist acts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">That said, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/169\/649\/\"><em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em><\/a> did recognize a few narrow categories of individuals who are present in the US but not subject to its laws \u2014 two of which are still relevant today. Children of invading foreign armies do not receive birthright citizenship, nor do children of foreign ambassadors and other diplomats who are immune from US law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">As the Court clarified in <em>Barbara<\/em>, both of these exemptions are derived from an old English rule that provided that the King could not convey citizenship to \u201cthose born in lands that he did not control.\u201d Thus, when a foreign military occupied English soil and stripped the King of his ability to rule over those lands, children born to members of that military were not citizens.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The exemption for ambassadors and some other foreign diplomats, meanwhile, flows from what <em>Barbara<\/em> described as a \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25-365_4hdj.pdf\">fiction of extraterritoriality<\/a>.\u201d While senior diplomats are present in the United States, they are nonetheless deemed to \u201cremain on foreign soil\u201d and thus are not subject to US law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">But not all employees of foreign governments qualify for this diplomatic immunity. Consider, for example, the tragic facts of <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca9\/23-55803\/23-55803-2025-08-20.html\"><em>Moncada<\/em> <em>v. Rubio<\/em><\/a> (2025), a recent federal appeals court decision holding that a man who lived as a US citizen for nearly seven decades was not, in fact, a citizen.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Roberto Moncada is the son of a Nicaraguan diplomat who worked in the United Nations when Moncada was born in 1950. The US government previously concluded that Moncada\u2019s father served as a \u201cconsul\u201d when his son was born, and, thus, Moncada was a US citizen, because consuls and their families do not enjoy diplomatic immunity. But, in 2018, the US government discovered that Moncada\u2019s father was actually an \u201cattach\u00e9,\u201d a more senior diplomat who does enjoy immunity. And then, the father\u2019s diplomatic immunity cut the son off from US citizenship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Under these principles, several provisions of Trump\u2019s new executive order are unconstitutional, at least in part. The provisions stripping citizenship from the children of employees of foreign governments are lawful to the extent that they apply to children of people with diplomatic immunity but unconstitutional to the extent they apply to lower-ranking individuals with no immunity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The provision dealing with members of foreign terrorist organizations is also unconstitutional, since people who engage in terrorism on US soil are very much subject to US law \u2014 as are babies born on US soil to parents connected to terrorism. Although, in the unlikely event that a foreign terrorist group actually seized control of some portions of US soil, then the exemption for children of invading armies would likely apply.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">The provision dealing with so-called \u201cbirth tourists\u201d is also unconstitutional, because a pregnant woman who enters the United States to ensure that their child is a US citizen is subject to US law, as is her child.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Indeed, Trump appears to concede this later point in a separate executive order handed down at the same time as his \u201cContinuing to Protect\u201d order. The second order, entitled \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/presidential-actions\/2026\/08\/ending-birth-tourism\/\">Ending Birth Tourism<\/a>,\u201d instructs two federal cabinet departments to update their rules to discourage alleged birth tourists from entering the country, including by taking \u201cappropriate action to prevent the entry into the United States of, or the granting of any visa or other travel authorization\u201d to such individuals. But, again, if the United States has the power to deny visas or otherwise bar these individuals from entering the country, that means that they are subject to US jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p><h2 class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup\">Why Trump keeps trying to restrict birthright citizenship<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">So, the Constitution\u2019s text, the Court\u2019s venerable decision in <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>, and its brand new decision in <em>Barbara<\/em> are all clear about who qualifies for birthright citizenship. All of these authorities establish that much of Trump\u2019s new executive order is unconstitutional, because it purports to strip citizenship from people who are subject to US jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">But that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that the order will be struck down. While <em>Barbara<\/em> did little more than reaffirm the same rule the Court announced nearly 130 years ago in <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/culture\/493694\/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-barbara\">four justices dissented in <em>Barbara<\/em><\/a> \u2014 although, these justices also released four separate opinions with four separate definitions of who does and does not qualify for birthright citizenship. So, on this Supreme Court, the mere fact that a legal question has been settled for more than a century does not prevent many of the justices from voting to unsettle it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">Indeed, this Court does not even reliably follow its own recent precedents. The Court\u2019s decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/24-109_21o3.pdf\"><em>Louisiana v. Callais<\/em><\/a> (2026), which repealed a 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act and limited Congress\u2019s power to prevent race discrimination in elections, was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/politics\/490841\/supreme-court-gerrymandering-allen-milligan-alabama-republicans\">wholly at odds<\/a> with the Court\u2019s three-year-old decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/22pdf\/21-1086_1co6.pdf\"><em>Allen v. Milligan<\/em><\/a> (2023). The Court\u2019s decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/24pdf\/23-1275_e2pg.pdf\"><em>Medina v. Planned Parenthood<\/em><\/a> (2025), which repealed a federal law permitting Medicaid patients to choose their own doctors, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/politics\/491777\/supreme-court-medina-planned-parenthodd-fs-credit-abortion\">cannot be squared with its decision two years earlier<\/a> in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/22pdf\/21-806_2dp3.pdf\"><em>Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski<\/em><\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">So, while two of the Court\u2019s Republicans joined all three of its Democrats in <em>Barbara<\/em>, it is possible that at least one of those Republicans will vote with the dissenters on a narrower question, like whether Trump can strip citizenship from the children of so-called birth tourists. And even if all of the justices in the <em>Barbara<\/em> majority hold the line, if one of them leaves the Court while Trump is still in office, he will almost certainly replace them with someone who opposes birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"duet--article--article-body-component\">\n<p class=\"duet--article--dangerously-set-cms-markup duet--article--standard-paragraph _10sa9omi itxwjq1 itxwjq0 pn04iq1\">So, while Trump\u2019s executive orders often defy the Constitution\u2019s explicit text, Trump also understands something important about US law: It doesn\u2019t actually matter what the Constitution says if you have five votes on the Supreme Court who are willing to do what you want them to do.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<script async=\"async\" data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"https:\/\/pl30214220.effectivecpmnetwork.com\/9ab3d4df8a7e1a6171e16ddbf732cc19\/invoke.js\"><\/script>\r\n<div id=\"container-9ab3d4df8a7e1a6171e16ddbf732cc19\"><\/div>\r\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order that purports to strip citizenship from some Americans. This isn\u2019t our first time here: Last year, Trump issued an executive order that attempted to strip citizenship from many Americans born in this country. Months later, in response to a lawsuit brought over Trump\u2019s order, the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":38988,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/platform.vox.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2026\/08\/gettyimages-2262888005.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C10.694144515047%2C100%2C78.611710969907&w=1200","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political-news"],"brizy_media":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=38987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38987\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/38988"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=38987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=38987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usnews-14267fa.ingress-comporellon.ewp.live\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=38987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}