Chief Justice Challenges DOJ Over Uncertainty in Birth Tourism Debate: ‘It’s a New World’ Sparks Heated Exchange

During a significant court session attended by the president, a former Trump attorney who now holds a prominent position within the Department of Justice found himself momentarily stunned. This occurred when the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice firmly countered his suggestion about the necessity of abolishing birthright citizenship in today’s society.

In the early stages of the proceedings, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the evolving times demand a reinterpretation of the nation’s laws. He aimed to align with the Trump administration’s immigration goals, as outlined in a recent executive order focused on preserving the “meaning and value of American citizenship.”

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that “[a]ll 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,” excluding children of foreign diplomats with limited exceptions.

In the case of Trump v. Barbara, the administration contended that the current practice of almost automatic birthright citizenship has spawned issues, such as potential national security risks and the phenomenon of “birth tourism.” This term refers to foreigners who visit the U.S. solely to give birth and secure citizenship for their offspring, whom the president has labeled “anchor babies.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, although considering it tangential to the core legal question, expressed interest in understanding the actual extent of the “birth tourism” issue. However, this inquiry did not yield a definitive response.

“Do you have any information about how common that it is or how significant a problem it is?” Roberts asked.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer answered, before referring to “media reports” and estimates of over a million examples from China alone, with hundreds of “birth tourism” companies, and some Russian elite “hot spots” in Miami.

WATCH: Chief Justice John Roberts asks the U.S. solicitor general about birth tourism:

D. John Sauer: “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.”

Roberts: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same… pic.twitter.com/G68qGH1YfA

— PBS News (@NewsHour) April 1, 2026

It was then that Sauer flirted with living constitutionalism, remarking, “But of course, we’re in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to you, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.”

“Well, it’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution,” Roberts fired back.

Seemingly stung, Sauer had to pause a moment before he could respond with, “It is.”

“And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that just Alito was referring to, you’ve got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils, and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. You said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here,” the solicitor general finished his thought.

Sauer insisted, as he did in his brief, that the “children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens” cannot have birthright citizenship when their parents lack “a permanent domicile.” That, the solicitor general said, is a far cry from granting citizenship to “freed slaves and their children” after the Civil War.

Later on, when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was questioning ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang, he said the whole ballgame boiled down to whether the court said her reading of precedent was the right one. The ACLU’s brief emphasized that the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark “correctly interpreted” the citizenship clause to “include children of foreign nationals without regard to parental domicile.”

Wong, the son of Chinese immigrants with “permanent domicil and residence,” was barred from reentering the U.S. under the Chinese Exclusion Act despite having been born here. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed that Wong was an American citizen, under the 14th Amendment.

While it was unclear which way Kavanaugh was leaning, he was already envisioning how the case might end in the ACLU’s favor, to the attorney’s apparent delight.

“I think Mr. Sauer acknowledged, and you mentioned this in your opening, that if we agree with you on how to read Wong Kim Ark, then you win,” Kavanaugh said. “That could be just a short opinion, right, that says ‘the better reading is respondents’ reading, the government doesn’t ask us to overrule, affirmed’?”

“Yes,” Wang quickly replied, to audible laughter in the courtroom.

That joyful sentiment was not shared by the president.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Trump posted.