The battle over birthright citizenship did not end at the Supreme Court. It simply moved from the courtroom back to Congress, where House Speaker Mike Johnson is now signaling that Republicans may try to rewrite the rules through legislation after President Donald Trump’s executive order was struck down.
Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said during a July 5 Fox News interview that Congress should take up the issue, arguing that the current system has been abused through what conservatives call “birth tourism.”
His message was clear: if the Supreme Court would not allow Trump to change birthright citizenship by executive order, then Republican lawmakers should look for another route.
At the center of the dispute is one of the most powerful lines in the 14th Amendment. The Citizenship Clause says that people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they live. In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are still citizens at birth under that clause.
Johnson Says Citizenship Has Been “Devalued”
Johnson’s argument rests on a concern long raised by immigration hardliners: that some foreign parents travel to the United States mainly to give birth, allowing their children to receive U.S. citizenship automatically. Critics of that practice say it turns citizenship into a loophole. Supporters of birthright citizenship say the constitutional guarantee is broader than modern immigration politics and cannot be narrowed by anger over isolated abuses.
The numbers behind birth tourism remain disputed. The U.S. government does not clearly track how many babies are born each year to people who travel briefly to the country for that purpose. Some estimates are much higher than others, while immigration advocates argue the practice represents only a tiny share of U.S. births. The Guardian reported that the Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that tourist visa holders account for 20,000 to 26,000 annual births, less than 1% of total U.S. births.
That uncertainty has not slowed the political fight. For Johnson and other Republicans, the concern is not only about numbers. It is about what citizenship should mean, who should receive it automatically, and whether Congress has room to narrow the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in federal law.
The Supreme Court Closed One Door but Left Republicans Searching for Another
The Supreme Court decision was a major setback for Trump’s immigration agenda. The executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, tried to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. when their parents were unlawfully present or only temporarily in the country. The Court rejected that approach and affirmed the lower court injunction blocking enforcement.
But the ruling also contained a wrinkle Republicans immediately noticed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Trump’s order could not stand, but he said Congress could amend federal citizenship law to create exceptions for children born to foreign citizens who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country. In his view, the executive order violated federal statute, not necessarily the Constitution.
That distinction is why Johnson’s comments matter. Republicans may now try to turn Kavanaugh’s reasoning into a legislative strategy. The problem is that such a bill would almost certainly face fierce legal challenges, and if the Court’s constitutional majority controls the next case, a simple statute may still fail.
A Constitutional Amendment Would Be Much Harder
Trump has argued that Congress can act without going through the long constitutional amendment process. But if courts treat birthright citizenship as a firm constitutional guarantee, then changing it would likely require amending the Constitution itself.
That is a steep climb. A constitutional amendment must generally be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The National Archives notes that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution only after ratification by three-fourths of the states.
That means Johnson’s call may energize Republican voters, but it does not guarantee a quick legal victory. Even if the House passed a birthright citizenship bill, it would face the Senate, the courts, and the heavy weight of more than a century of constitutional interpretation.
The SAVE America Act Fight Adds Another Layer
Johnson also used the same interview to revive another Trump-backed priority: the SAVE America Act, a voting bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and identification to cast a ballot. Earlier reporting from Spectrum News said the bill had already struggled in the Senate, where it needed 60 votes and Republicans held 53 seats.
Johnson has floated using reconciliation to move it forward with a simple majority, though reconciliation is normally limited to spending, revenue, and debt-related measures.
That matters because both fights are part of the same political frame. Republicans are tying immigration, citizenship, voting, and national identity into one larger argument heading into the next election cycle. Democrats, meanwhile, describe these efforts as restrictive, unnecessary, and dangerous to constitutional rights.
The Fight Is Now Bigger Than One Court Case
The Supreme Court ruling gave birthright citizenship a powerful legal shield, but it did not remove the issue from American politics. Johnson’s comments show that Republicans are not walking away from the fight. Instead, they are trying to convert a judicial defeat into a congressional campaign.
For families, immigrants, legal scholars, and lawmakers, the stakes are enormous.
Birthright citizenship is not a small administrative rule. It decides who belongs from the first breath, who receives the full protection of American law, and whether citizenship is treated as a constitutional promise or a policy Congress can reshape.
The next phase will likely be slower, messier, and more political than the court case itself. Johnson wants Congress to act. Trump wants another path after losing at the Supreme Court. Democrats are preparing to resist. And the country is once again being forced to debate one of its oldest questions: what makes someone American?
