According to the article, ACLU, others urge judge to block Trump's latest birthright citizenship orders, the ACLU and other groups asked a federal judge to block U.S. President Donald Trump from enforcing new executive orders to limit the number of people eligible for birthright citizenship.

The Court Filing

In a recent court filing, the groups called Trump's orders an improper attempt to evade the U.S. Supreme Court's June 30 rejection of his effort to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents were not American citizens or legal permanent residents, known as green card holders.

The Supreme Court said Trump's original executive order, issued the day the Republican began his second White House term last year, violated the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

"Despite the Supreme Court’s clear direction, the President continues to claim for himself the power to identify categories of children whose citizenship he intends to deny," the filing said. "The court should underscore that the government may not strip away class members’ citizenship through any executive orders or other similarly flawed assertions of executive power over birthright citizenship."

Limiting birthright citizenship has been a top priority in Trump's immigration crackdown.

Trump's latest orders from August 6 take particular aim at "birth tourism," in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their children can obtain automatic citizenship.

Citizenship would be denied to children whose parents work for foreign governments in the United States, engage in fraud to obtain citizenship, or are classified as "alien enemies."

Trump Called Birth Tourism a Disgrace

Speaking in the Oval Office recently, Trump called the Supreme Court decision "very unfortunate" and said "people are building businesses around" birth tourism.

"It's a disgrace," Trump said. "They're buying their way in, and we're not going to let it happen."

Trump's original executive order targeted immigrants ​in the country illegally or even temporarily, including students and people with work visas.

The recent filing in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire asks the presiding judge to clarify that Trump's latest orders do not threaten the citizenship of children protected by an earlier injunction.

"President Trump may not like the fact that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right," Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "That is really beside the point. It’s well past time for these illegal and cruel attacks on children’s citizenship to end.” 

The Numbers

The Center for Immigration Studies, which supports less immigration, estimated in 2020 that between 20,000 and 26,000 mothers enter the country for "birth tourism" annually.

There were 3.61 million U.S. births in 2025, U.S. government data show.

Discussion Questions

  1. What is the constitutional basis for birthright citizenship?

    The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship is succinctly and clearly set forth in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

  2. What is the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship?

    In Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. _____ (2026) (No. 25-365), decided, June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through Executive Order 14160, reaffirming the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment generally grants U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil. 

    The Court concluded that the president’s executive order was inconsistent with the Citizenship Clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, in pertinent part, that “(a)ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” 

    The Trump v. Barbara decision preserves the longstanding rule of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States (although traditional exceptions, such as children of certain foreign diplomats, remain). The ruling is significant because it confirms that the President cannot unilaterally eliminate a constitutional right to citizenship through an executive order.

  3. As referenced in the article, President Trump’s proffered concern regarding birthright citizenship is that foreign mothers intentionally come to the United States to give birth to their children so that their newborns will automatically gain U.S. citizenship. Using the statistics referenced at the end of this article, including the numbers from the Center for Immigration Studies and U.S. government data, comment on the gravity and legitimacy of this concern.

    As indicated in the article, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimated in 2020 that between 20,000 and 26,000 mothers enter the country for "birth tourism" annually.

    The CIS is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit research organization founded in 1985 that focuses exclusively on U.S. immigration policy. It is interesting to note that the CIS describes itself as a “low-immigration, pro-immigrant” organization and conducts research on the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, environmental, and security effects of immigration. The CIS is generally associated with the “immigration-restrictionist” side of the U.S. immigration policy debate. It publishes reports and policy analyses, provides congressional testimony, and comments on proposed immigration policies and legislation.

    In addition to the CIS data, the article also cites U.S. government data that there were 3.61 million U.S. births in 2025. Taking an average of the CIS data, 23,000, and dividing it by 3.61, that means that “birth tourism” in the United States represents, at most, six one-hundredths of one percent of all births in the United States. Your author suggests that each reader formulate a reasoned opinion as to whether such a number justifies a grave and legitimate concern, and if it does, whether that justifies an executive order contrary to the express language of the U.S. Constitution and the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.