"House Speaker Mike Johnson called for legislative action to curtail birthright citizenship following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision upholding the 14th Amendment’s broad protections, as Republicans and Democrats clashed over the implications of the ruling. The Court’s majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed that children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors are U.S. citizens, rejecting President Trump’s executive order to limit the practice. Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, described ‘birthright tourism’ as a threat to national security, while critics warned of eroding civil rights. The decision, which requires a constitutional amendment to overturn, has reignited debates over immigration policy and the judiciary’s role in shaping it.
The 14th Amendment and Trump v. Barbara
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 Decision and Its Legal Foundations
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on July 5, 2026, upheld the constitutional principle of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to redefine who qualifies for U.S. citizenship. A majority of justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, affirmed that the 14th Amendment’s text—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”—applies to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors. Roberts emphasized that the amendment’s “long-settled understanding” reflects a foundational promise of equal rights, stating, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights.
The ruling emerged from Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging Trump’s 2025 executive order to strip citizenship from children of undocumented parents. While the majority rejected the order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence suggested Congress could pass legislation to narrow birthright citizenship, a stance echoed by conservative lawmakers. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the decision “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment” by expanding its scope beyond what the Reconstruction-era Congress intended.
Congressional Clashes and GOP Reform Efforts
Political Reactions: A Fractured Response
The decision sparked immediate political firestorms, with Republicans and Democrats sharply divided over its implications. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a key figure in the GOP, called for legislative action to address what he termed “birthright tourism,” a practice he described as “a threat to the rule of law and national security.” Johnson, speaking on Fox News Sunday, stated, “If there is a bill that can fix that, we’ll advance that immediately,” though he did not specify the exact legislative approach.
Senate Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, echoed Johnson’s calls for reform, framing birthright citizenship as a “blatant abuse of our immigration laws.” Cruz, a Texas Republican, had previously introduced legislation to narrow the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., a term central to the 14th Amendment. In contrast, Democrats like Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont dismissed the debate as a distraction, calling birthright tourism “a pretty marginal issue.
Contesting the Scale of Birthright Tourism
The Debate Over ‘Birthright Tourism’ and Its Scale
The term “birthright tourism” refers to the practice of foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. to give birth, thereby securing citizenship for their children. However, the scale of the phenomenon remains contentious. While some estimates suggest up to 39,000 such births annually, a group of 140 university professors argued in court filings that the practice accounts for an “infinitesimal proportion” of U.S. births.
The lack of federal data on the issue has fueled partisan clashes. Republicans have long criticized the practice as a loophole in immigration policy, while Democrats and legal scholars warn that targeting birthright citizenship could disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Aderson Francois, a Georgetown University law professor, called the Supreme Court’s decision a “new bloody shirt” for conservatives, predicting it would become a central issue in future elections.
Constitutional Hurdles and the SAVE America Act
The Path Forward: Legislation and Constitutional Challenges
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not settle the political battle over birthright citizenship. While the majority opinion emphasized the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, Republicans have signaled they will pursue legislative avenues. House Speaker Johnson hinted at advancing the SAVE America Act, a Trump-backed election reform bill, through budget reconciliation—a procedural tool that could bypass Senate filibuster rules.
Legal experts, however, caution that amending the Constitution is a daunting task, requiring approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. Meanwhile, the decision’s broader implications for civil rights remain uncertain.
Find more reporting in our News section.
Keep reading