Kline Says Trump’s Bid to Rehear Birthright Citizenship Case Faces Long Odds, Suggests Congress Holds the Stronger Path

Kaitlin Housler
Trump and SCOTUS

Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General and Liberty University law professor, said President Donald Trump’s plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear its recent birthright citizenship decision is unlikely to succeed, arguing that the legal standard for reconsideration has not been met despite new reports of hospitals and organizations openly marketing birth tourism following the ruling.

Speaking Thursday on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show, Kline explained that Supreme Court Rule 44 permits requests for rehearing only under narrow circumstances.

“The Supreme Court rules, Rule 44, allow for that request if there’s intervening circumstances of a substantial and controlling effect that have occurred between the announcement of the decision and the motion for reconsideration, and there’s a time limit, and he’s met the time limit, but he’s not gonna get it,” Kline explained.

Trump announced Wednesday that he would immediately seek a rehearing of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara, citing what he described as new evidence that businesses and organizations are profiting from birthright citizenship through advertising campaigns aimed at foreign nationals.

His announcement followed reports that Mission Regional Medical Center in South Texas has openly marketed maternity packages to women living outside the U.S., including Spanish-language advertisements promoting childbirth services for international patients.

Asked whether those advertisements could qualify as the type of new evidence required for a rehearing, Kline said they likely would not.

“I think his argument, as I understand it, is that we have seen significant activity to now profit from that Supreme Court decision by setting up essentially birthright tourism,” he explained.

However, Kline argued the underlying practice existed long before the Court’s ruling.

“But that was occurring prior to the decision, and it was actually part of the factual basis on which the initial argument was made,” he noted. “So it’s not new and substantial and intervening, I don’t believe.”

Kline added that while the advertising may be more visible today, it does not fundamentally change the legal landscape.

“The concern was that there was birthright tourism. Maybe the mode of advertising for it is new, but the fact that people were profiting by getting people into the United States to give birth for citizenship was well-known when this case was initially filed,” he said. “So it’s not new and intervening in any way. It’s just a new method and more of a bold way of communicating that they can do this.”

Despite this, Kline said he believes Trump’s concerns are legitimate and argued that rather than relying on executive authority, Congress has constitutional authority to address birth tourism through legislation.

“Congress can act in this area,” Kline said. “It has the ability to restrict birthright citizenship in various ways by imposing criminal penalties on people who facilitate and people who engage in birthright tourism.”

Watch:

– – –

Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network.

 

Related posts

Comments