Senate Bill 5667 and the Future of U.S. Territorial Citizenship

A new bill in the U.S. Senate, Senate Bill 5667, introduced by Senator James Lankford, proposes to restrict birthright citizenship in U.S. territories. Titled the “Ending Birthright Citizenship in U.S. Territories Act,” this legislation, dated September 30, 2026, aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, it would immediately affect how citizenship is granted to individuals born in these areas. This proposal is separate from executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in August 2026, which are currently facing legal challenges. The debate over territorial birthright citizenship touches upon the distinct legal statuses of various U.S. territories and the extent of Congress’s power to define citizenship rights.

Understanding Territorial Citizenship

The current legal framework for citizenship in U.S. territories is varied. For instance, federal statutes already recognize individuals born in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as U.S. citizens. The Northern Mariana Islands’ citizenship status, however, was established through a different statutory process than the other territories.

American Samoa stands apart, as individuals born there are considered U.S. nationals, not citizens, under the existing general statutory framework. This distinction is significant, especially when considering executive actions or legislative proposals that might affect citizenship rights. Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett has noted that such actions could potentially impact American Samoa if Congress were to alter or narrow the statutes that currently grant citizenship elsewhere.

Senator Lankford’s bill specifically targets Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the varied statutory bases for citizenship across territories raise questions about how such an amendment would interact with existing laws, particularly the specific covenant governing the Northern Mariana Islands. This covenant requires mutual agreement for changes impacting the political relationship, and it remains unclear how S. 5667 would affect citizenship rights derived from it.

The Impact of the Maryland Court Case

A federal court in Maryland has issued a temporary block on the enforcement of a presidential executive directive while litigation continues. The case, Blanca v. Trump, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. An October 15, 2026 memorandum related to this case clarified the scope of the plaintiffs’ class.

This memorandum stated that the plaintiffs’ class definition does not include individuals born in U.S. territories. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are not challenging Section 2(d) of the Executive Order, which pertains to territorial births. The court’s preliminary relief in a related case, CASA IV, was limited to that case’s established class.

The memorandum did not include individuals born in U.S. territories within the Blanca plaintiffs’ class. Consequently, the litigation has not yet resolved the application of the executive order’s territorial provision, particularly concerning American Samoa, which lacks a specific citizenship statute.

Birth Tourism Debates and Territorial Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara on June 30, 2026, affirmed birthright citizenship generally but allowed for certain exceptions. Representative Morgan Griffith, who introduced a companion bill in the House, has stated that this ruling did not address the process of citizenship by birth in U.S. territories. Both Griffith’s House bill and Lankford’s Senate bill focus specifically on territorial birthright citizenship, distinguishing their purpose from the broader executive order concerning birth tourism.

Supporters of legislative action argue that new laws could help address “birth tourism,” a practice where individuals travel to the U.S. to give birth. Physician Thomas Shieh has noted that birth tourism reportedly still occurs in Guam. He also emphasized that focusing on this issue should not distract from the local challenges in accessing prenatal care, which he identified as a problem on the island.

Critics, such as Neil Weare, co-director of Right to Democracy, view these legislative efforts as a concerning trend. He argues that they are based on the assumption that citizenship rights for those born in U.S. territories are not constitutionally protected in the same way as for those born in other parts of the United States. These differing viewpoints highlight a broader disagreement about Congress’s authority to establish citizenship rules for territories and the rights associated with being born in these areas. The future of territorial birthright citizenship will likely be shaped by further congressional action on S. 5667 and ongoing legal proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions