Solicitor General John Sauer presented what he called "striking" figures on birth tourism to the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices considered President Donald Trump's effort to narrow birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The case centers on Trump's January 2025 executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The administration argues the amendment's birthright citizenship provision incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives have long raised concerns about birth tourism as a lucrative industry that they say undermines the naturalization process. Senate Republicans wrote in a 2022 report that birth tourism "short circuits and demeans the U.S. naturalization process."
The Trump administration argues that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude only those not under U.S. legal authority, such as foreign diplomats, and that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors lack the required "domicile" in the United States.
Sauer told the justices that birth tourism has "spawned a sprawling industry" and created "a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States." He noted that the U.S. government has secured convictions against birth tourism operators, including a 2024 jury verdict against Michael Liu and Phoebe Dong for running an operation that coached clients to deceive immigration officials.
What the Left Is Saying
Birthright citizenship supporters say the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous, rejecting arguments that it was never intended to cover children of unauthorized immigrants or temporary visitors. They contend birth tourism is rare and the statistics cited by the administration are speculative.
Proponents note that no reliable government data exists on birth tourism because existing visa categories cannot distinguish it from other travel, such as medical tourism. They argue the framers of the 14th Amendment used broad language — "all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — intentionally to ensure citizenship for virtually everyone born on American soil.
Legal scholars opposing the administration's position have noted that lower courts have consistently interpreted the amendment broadly since the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child of Chinese immigrants born in the United States was automatically a citizen.
What the Numbers Show
The numbers Sauer cited are largely based on media reports and congressional correspondence rather than government data. He told the court that Chinese media reported approximately 500 birth tourism companies in China whose business involves bringing pregnant women to the United States to give birth.
Sauer cited a March letter from members of Congress to the Department of Homeland Security asking for information about birth tourism, noting that media estimates suggest "over a million, or 1.5 million" cases from China alone. He also referenced a congressional report documenting hotspots where birth tourism occurs, including Russian elites traveling to Miami.
However, Sauer acknowledged during arguments that "no one knows for sure" about firm data on the industry. The Senate Republicans' 2022 report explicitly stated they could not calculate birth tourism numbers because the U.S. government has no mechanism to track it, and existing visa data cannot distinguish birth tourism from other travel categories.
The administration has secured criminal convictions in some birth tourism cases, demonstrating that the practice occurs, though the overall scale remains unverified.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could fundamentally alter birthright citizenship, a right that has been interpreted broadly since the post-Civil War era. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the birth tourism statistics Sauer cited had "no impact on the legal analysis," suggesting skepticism about using modern immigration patterns to interpret a 19th-century constitutional amendment.
The case presents the court with a question about original meaning versus contemporary circumstances. As Sauer argued, "We're in a new world now...where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen." The justices must decide whether the framers' intent and the amendment's text support a narrower interpretation that excludes children of those without legal permanent residence.
A ruling is expected by late June. The outcome will affect millions of families and could reshape immigration incentives, regardless of how the court rules on the legal merits.