A newly introduced bill in Congress would, if enacted, change the rules governing U.S. citizenship at birth for people born in the U.S. Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories beginning in 2027, reopening a long-running constitutional debate over whether Congress has the authority to determine citizenship in the territories.
The proposal, titled the End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act, was introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. The measure has not become law and remains in the early stages of the legislative process. If approved by Congress and signed by the president, it would amend federal law governing citizenship at birth in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands for children born on or after Jan. 1, 2027.
The legislation would not revoke the citizenship of people who are already U.S. citizens. Instead, it would apply prospectively to future births if enacted.
The proposal comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara, a closely watched case involving President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the 50 states to parents who were in the country unlawfully or temporarily. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, reaffirming that children born in the United States are generally entitled to citizenship at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
While that ruling settled the constitutional question for births in the states, it deliberately did not address a separate issue that has existed for decades: whether the Constitution itself guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. territories.
That distinction is at the center of Griffith’s proposal.
Unlike people born in the 50 states, individuals born in the Virgin Islands and most other U.S. territories receive citizenship through acts of Congress. Federal law currently recognizes people born in the U.S. Virgin Islands as U.S. citizens at birth, but supporters of the new legislation argue that because Congress created those statutory rights, Congress also has the authority to change them. American Samoa is currently the exception among the inhabited U.S. territories, where people born there are generally U.S. nationals rather than U.S. citizens at birth.
In introducing the legislation, Griffith relied on both the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the controversial Insular Cases – a series of Supreme Court decisions from the early 1900s holding that not every provision of the Constitution automatically applies in full to unincorporated U.S. territories.
“The Barbara case leaves the door open for Congressional action on citizenship in the American territories,” Griffith said in a statement announcing the bill. “Just like Congress possesses the power to grant the territories constitutional rights in statute, we have the power to take them away in statute.”
That legal theory is strongly disputed by constitutional scholars and advocates representing the territories.
Neil Weare, co-director of Right to Democracy, said the proposal demonstrates why many legal scholars have long argued that the Insular Cases should be overturned.
“This dangerous and unconstitutional legislation highlights the problem with the Insular Cases and the idea that Congress has the power to simply turn constitutional rights on and off at will in U.S. territories,” Weare said.
Weare served as counsel of record on an amicus brief filed in Trump v. Barbara on behalf of 21 current and former officials from the U.S. territories. The brief argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause protects people born in the territories and does not permit Congress to unilaterally deny citizenship.
Weare also questioned whether the bill’s language matches its stated intent.
Griffith’s office has said the legislation is intended to preserve citizenship for children born in the territories to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Weare argues, however, that while the bill includes that intent in its applicability provisions, the statutory amendments themselves are broad enough that the proposal could create uncertainty if enacted.
“The proposed amendments to federal statute are sweeping, and could mean that anyone born in a U.S. territory starting in 2027 would no longer be recognized as a U.S. citizen – indeed, may not be a citizen of anywhere,” Weare said.
The legislation also follows comments made by Vice President JD Vance after the Supreme Court’s decision. Appearing on Fox News, Vance responded to a proposal that birthright citizenship in the territories could be limited through executive action by calling it “a great idea” and saying the administration was “certainly looking at that,” according to Right to Democracy.
Adi Martínez Román, co-director of Right to Democracy, said the issue extends beyond politics or debates over the future political status of the territories.
“The question of federal power over citizenship in U.S. territories is not a partisan or ideological issue – it is one of fundamental rights in a democracy,” Martínez Román said. “Leaders from U.S. territories are coming together to oppose these kinds of unilateral federal actions, whether they are Democrats or Republicans and whether they support statehood, independence, free association or another political status.”
Martínez Román also noted that the proposal would amend citizenship provisions contained in the covenant establishing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which he argues was negotiated to require mutual consent before those provisions can be changed.
The measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives but has not yet advanced in the legislative process. It would need to pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the president before becoming law. If enacted, the changes would apply only to births occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2027.
