BAN Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The BAN Act seeks to prevent individuals from entering the U.S. primarily to obtain birthright citizenship for their children by making such actions a basis for inadmissibility and a criminal offense, directly challenging traditional interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to define "birth tourism" and establish it as a ground for inadmissibility to the United States. It also amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to create new criminal offenses for aliens who engage in birth tourism visa fraud, for family members who facilitate it, and for individuals or entities that organize or promote commercial birth tourism enterprises.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary legislative response to a perceived abuse of U.S. citizenship, which they contend is being commercialized and devalued by the practice of birth tourism. They cite a recent Supreme Court decision, *Trump v. Barbara*, as an unduly narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that necessitates Congressional action to protect national sovereignty and the integrity of the immigration system.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely contend that the bill is an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has historically been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all persons born on U.S. soil. They may also raise concerns about the practical difficulties of determining an individual's 'primary purpose,' the potential for racial profiling, and the risk of denying entry or medical care to legitimate pregnant travelers.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for a quick but informed evaluation.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Birthright Abuse and Nationality Act' or the 'BAN Act.' This provides a concise and recognizable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
This is a standard legislative practice to provide a clear and memorable name for the bill, reflecting its core purpose.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, though the chosen name itself may be seen as politically charged.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the provision itself, beyond the political messaging embedded in the chosen name.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Birth Tourism and Citizenship
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, asserting that a recent Supreme Court decision (*Trump v. Barbara*) misinterprets the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. It argues that birth tourism devalues American citizenship, is openly commercialized, and that many other democratic nations require a stronger legal connection for birthright citizenship. It also affirms Congress's authority to regulate immigration.
Section 3
Definition of Birth Tourism
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to add a new definition for 'birth tourism.' It specifies that birth tourism is when an alien visits the United States primarily to give birth to a child who will not have a U.S. national parent. Crucially, it excludes visits for medical treatment deemed necessary by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a case-by-case basis.
Section 4
Birth Tourism as a Ground of Inadmissibility
This section amends the INA to establish birth tourism as a new ground for inadmissibility to the United States. It states that any alien seeking admission for birth tourism is inadmissible, as are their spouses, partners, or immediate family members who knowingly participate in or facilitate the practice. Immigration officers are directed to consider factors like being in the third trimester of pregnancy, having an expected delivery date during the stay, or seeking admission in a temporary nonimmigrant classification while pregnant as evidence.
Section 5
Criminal Offenses for Birth Tourism and Facilitation
This section amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to create new criminal offenses related to birth tourism. It criminalizes aliens who knowingly fail to disclose pregnancy or misrepresent facts for birth tourism visa fraud (up to 10 years in prison). It also targets spouses, partners, or immediate family members who knowingly participate in or facilitate such concealment or fraud (leading to visa revocation and removal). Furthermore, it criminalizes individuals or entities that organize, advertise, promote, finance, manage, or facilitate commercial birth tourism enterprises (fines and up to 10 years in prison). The section also grants U.S. district courts jurisdiction to order removal at the time of sentencing for convicted aliens.
The bill explicitly references and critiques the Supreme Court's decision in *Trump v. Barbara* (June 30, 2026), stating that the majority opinion adopted an "unduly narrow and formalistic interpretation" of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Section 2, Paragraphs (1) and (2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide context and justification, but its direct challenge to the Supreme Court's interpretation is a significant political and legal statement.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly stating disagreement with the Supreme Court's interpretation is necessary to justify the legislative action and assert Congress's role in defining immigration law.
Case against: Opponents might view this as an overreach of legislative power, attempting to circumvent judicial authority on constitutional interpretation through statute.
Estimated impact: This framing sets the stage for potential constitutional challenges to the bill's legality.
The definition of 'birth tourism' explicitly excludes visiting the United States for 'medical treatment that is determined necessary by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a case-by-case basis.'
Section 3(B) and Section 5(d)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is a necessary humanitarian exception, but the details of its implementation are left vague, potentially making it less visible than the broad prohibitions.
Case for: Proponents would argue this demonstrates the bill's intent to target abuse, not legitimate medical needs, and provides flexibility for humanitarian cases.
Case against: Critics may argue that the 'case-by-case' determination by HHS is vague, lacks clear criteria, and could lead to inconsistent application or delays for individuals needing urgent medical care.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly impact how medical emergencies for pregnant foreign nationals are handled at the border and within the U.S.
When determining whether an alien is seeking admission for birth tourism, an immigration officer 'shall consider, among other relevant evidence,' factors such as being in the third trimester of pregnancy, having an expected delivery date during the stay, or seeking admission in a temporary nonimmigrant classification while pregnant.
Section 4(C)
Why it matters:This language provides discretion to immigration officers, allowing for a broader assessment rather than creating strict rules, which can be a way to balance enforcement with flexibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides clear guidance to immigration officers on relevant indicators without creating an overly rigid or discriminatory rule that would automatically deny entry based solely on pregnancy.
Case against: Opponents might argue that even 'considering' these factors could lead to implicit bias or profiling against pregnant individuals, effectively making pregnancy a de facto reason for increased scrutiny or denial of entry.
Estimated impact: This language shapes how immigration officers exercise their discretion at ports of entry, potentially increasing scrutiny of all pregnant foreign nationals.