{"id":195939,"date":"2026-08-20T19:56:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T19:56:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/195939\/"},"modified":"2026-08-20T19:56:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T19:56:18","slug":"after-supreme-court-setback-trump-again-targets-immigration-by-expanding-definition-of-birthright-citizenship-spokane-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/195939\/","title":{"rendered":"After Supreme Court setback, Trump again targets immigration by expanding definition of birthright citizenship | Spokane News"},"content":{"rendered":"

(AMHERST, MASS.) Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump has issued<\/a> over 270 executive orders<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That includes two orders<\/a> issued in August 2026 addressing birthright citizenship, a subject seemingly settled by the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision<\/a>. In June, the high court struck down Trump\u2019s effort to deny<\/a> citizenship to children born to foreign parents who are unlawfully in the United States.<\/p>\n

One order directs federal agencies<\/a> not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children of certain foreign national parents. They include the children of an \u201calien enemy,\u201d meaning citizens of a foreign country that is at war with the United States<\/a>, and children of parents who are employees of a foreign government \u2013 such as ambassadors, for example.<\/p>\n

The second executive order calls on federal agencies to curtail so-called \u201cbirth tourism<\/a>,\u201d which it defines this way: the \u201centry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.\u201d<\/p>\n

As someone who has studied citizenship law<\/a>, I found the two birthright executive orders eye-catching. At first glance, they seemed to defy the Supreme Court\u2019s birthright citizenship decision. But on closer examination, the picture is not so clear. That\u2019s because the orders target aspects of birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court did not address in its June decision.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court decision<\/p>\n

On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to stop recognizing birthright citizenship<\/a> for babies born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.<\/p>\n

In June 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the order<\/a>. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: \u201cChildren born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are \u2026 citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Citizenship Clause.\u201d<\/p>\n

Roberts noted that the only people excluded from that clause are people who are exempt from U.S. jurisdiction, despite living on U.S. soil, such as ambassadors\u2019 children and members of Native American tribes. The number of people covered by that exception is, as law scholars have noted<\/a>, \u201ctrivial and easily administrable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Roberts\u2019 opinion said nothing about birth tourism. That omission seems to have left room for Trump to craft his new executive orders.<\/p>\n

While Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck argues<\/a> that the president is defying the court, I believe Trump is doing something different. He is engaged in what tax lawyers call \u201cavoidance<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The president is using lawful methods to identify loopholes in the court\u2019s decision. Some scholars call it \u201clegalistic noncompliance<\/a>\u201d \u2013 that is, getting around the court\u2019s birthright citizenship decision while pretending to follow it.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>Trump departs the Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, after attending oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. Andrew Harnik\/Getty Images<\/a>Trump v. Hawaii<\/p>\n

One way for a president to avoid the implications of an adverse court ruling is to claim a new action is authorized under a rule not discussed in the decision.<\/p>\n

Stephen Miller, Trump\u2019s deputy chief of staff, explained the legal basis of the new executiue orders this way<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cSection 215 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president this authority,\u201d Miller told reporters<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nothing in the Supreme Court\u2019s June birthright citizenship ruling touched on the president\u2019s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, the 2018 case Trump v. Hawaii<\/a> did.<\/p>\n

Decided during the president\u2019s first term, after the so-called Muslim ban<\/a> that suspended entry into the U.S. for people from some Muslim-majority countries, the Supreme Court held that the president \u201clawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him\u2026 (by) the Immigration and Nationality Act \u2026 (to) suspend \u2026 the entry of aliens into the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

The emphasis here is on \u201cbroad discretion.\u201d As Roberts wrote in the majority opinion<\/a>, the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the president to make \u201cdecisions whether and when to suspend entry \u2026 and on what conditions.\u201d It is left to the president to figure out when \u201cthe entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

The language in Trump\u2019s birth tourism executive order<\/a> reflects Roberts\u2019 understanding of the scope of the authority granted to the chief executive by the Immigration and Nationality Act.<\/p>\n

\u201cBirth tourism,\u201d the order says<\/a>, \u201cundermines the integrity of the Nation\u2019s immigration system by enabling foreign nationals to exploit their temporary admission to obtain permanent immigration-related benefits. Birth tourism also \u2026 impairs the executive branch\u2019s ability to protect the national security.\u201d<\/p>\n

Protection of national security was one of the grounds Roberts specifically cited in Trump v. Hawaii<\/a> as a basis for the president to prevent foreign nationals from entering the United States. The president\u2019s new executive orders try to circumvent the court\u2019s birthright citizenship case by invoking a law not discussed in that case.<\/p>\n

\u2018Ending it a different way\u2019<\/p>\n

During the Oval Office signing ceremony for his two new executive orders, the president was not subtle about his intentions<\/a> regarding birthright citizenship. With Miller at his side, he called the Supreme Court\u2019s June ruling \u201cvery unfair\u201d and said that with new orders \u201cwe\u2019re ending it a different way.\u201d<\/p>\n

In its Trump v. Hawaii ruling, the Supreme Court charted the route for him to do so.<\/p>\n

But, as Vladeck argues<\/a>, even if the president does not succeed in getting the court to approve the administration\u2019s new effort to end birthright citizenship, it will continue to \u201ctry to muddy the waters when it comes to describing categories of non-citizens\u201d and make the definition of citizenship not depend on where a child is born.<\/p>\n

Instead, Vladeck says, an immigrant child\u2019s status in this country would depend on \u201cwhether officials can pin a disqualifying label on her parent.\u201d<\/p>\n

That would leave the court\u2019s birthright citizenship decision undisturbed, while hollowing out its practical effect.<\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a>, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Austin Sarat<\/a>, Amherst College<\/a><\/p>\n

Read more:<\/p>\n

Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.<\/p>\n

\"\"\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"(AMHERST, MASS.) Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump has issued over 270 executive orders.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":195940,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[146],"tags":[4205,537,66217,3197,3029,3198,87031,6006,1296,12,3365,8712,3638,57798,87033,493,87030,87032,56425,535,3639,66216,1487,7036,520,17,13112,46721,57565,6004],"class_list":["post-195939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-john-roberts","tag-birth-tourism","tag-birthright-citizenship","tag-birthright-citizenship-in-the-united-states","tag-chief-justice-john-roberts","tag-child","tag-citizenship","tag-citizenship-of-the-united-states","tag-constitutional-law","tag-court","tag-donald-trump","tag-executive-order","tag-executive-orders","tag-federal-government-of-the-united-states","tag-foreign-national","tag-government-and-personhood","tag-immigration","tag-immigration-and-nationality-act","tag-immigration-and-nationality-act-of-1965","tag-immigration-law","tag-john-roberts","tag-law","tag-politics-society","tag-supreme-court-of-the-united-states","tag-tncen","tag-trump-administration","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-law","tag-us-immigration","tag-us-law","tag-us-supreme-court"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195939\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/195940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}