Supreme Court Reviews Birth Tourism Amid Birthright Citizenship Debate

Measuring birth tourism in the U.S. is notoriously tricky. But on Wednesday, Attorney General John Sauer highlighted the staggering numbers noted by the Supreme Court as justices analyze President Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship.

“You’ll find this surprising,” Sauer remarked. “Reports suggest that by 2015, there were around 500 birth tourism companies in China, specifically catering to those who want to give birth and then return home.”

This comment came after Chief Justice John Roberts inquired about how common birth tourism is—the practice of traveling to the U.S. to give birth, thereby granting the child citizenship. Sauer admitted that “nobody knows for sure” regarding solid statistics and referenced estimations indicating that, in China alone, the number of such births could exceed 1 million, maybe even 1.5 million.

The oral arguments focused on Trump’s 2025 Executive Order, which interprets the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause narrowly. The order implies that children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporarily present parents wouldn’t automatically gain citizenship. The administration argues that the current birthright citizenship guidelines incentivize illegal immigration.

Many Republican AGs have supported Trump’s push against birthright citizenship. A 2022 Senate report labeled the birth tourism industry as profitable but detrimental to the U.S. naturalization process. Still, the scope of birth tourism is somewhat elusive, with proponents of birthright citizenship suggesting it rarely happens.

Republican senators pointed out that tracking the number of birth tourists is challenging since current visa data doesn’t differentiate between various travel purposes like maternity or medical reasons.

Yet, Sauer cited several compelling statistics to emphasize the issue’s magnitude. He mentioned that a March 9 letter from several Congress members to the Department of Homeland Security questioned the potential numbers, stating estimates could exceed 1 million from China alone. The Congressional report he’d referenced also highlighted certain hotspots for birth tourism, like Russian elites heading to Miami.

Despite the unclear figures, some people have faced legal action for their involvement in birth tourism. In 2024, Michael Liu and Phoebe Dong were found guilty of conspiracy and money laundering, accused of helping pregnant Chinese women enter the U.S. under false pretenses to give birth.

In his address to the Supreme Court, Sauer pointed out that America’s near-universal birthright citizenship policy has fostered a substantial birth tourism industry, with many foreign nationals, including those from potentially adversarial nations, choosing to give birth in the U.S. This has created a generation of Americans abroad who lack significant ties to the country.

The Supreme Court case explores the amendment’s wording, which states that anyone born in the U.S. and “subject to its jurisdiction” is automatically a citizen. Trump labeled this provision as outdated, suggesting it stems from Civil War-era principles.

On Tuesday, Trump declared that he would be the first serving president to attend oral arguments, stating, “It had to do with slave babies,” reinforcing that it wasn’t about catering to wealthy individuals seeking U.S. citizenship for their children.

Sauer argued that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors are not capable of establishing a “domicile” in the U.S., implying they remain under the jurisdiction of their home countries.

Roberts questioned the relevance of Sauer’s statements about birth tourism, seeking reassurance that it does not influence the legal matters at hand. Sauer maintained that the contemporary implications of the amendment, which includes birth tourism, weren’t something its 19th-century framers could have envisioned.

He added, “As Justice Alito has pointed out, we now live in a world where 8 billion people can give birth to American children in a single flight.” Roberts, however, remained skeptical of Sauer’s assertions, responding, “Yes, but the Constitution hasn’t changed.”