On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court settled the question. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court struck down the executive order ending birthright citizenship by a vote of 6–3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and his holding about children born in this country to parents here unlawfully or temporarily ran one sentence:

"Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."

Fourteen days later, Greg Steube filed a bill to get around it.

What H.R. 9662 actually does

Steube's bill is called the Birthright Citizenship Limits for Aliens and Illegal Migrants Act — the Birthright CLAIM Act. It was introduced on July 14, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has sat ever since.

Three colleagues signed on as cosponsors: Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Tim Burchett of Tennessee.

The text of the bill does three separate things, and only the first has gotten any attention.

1. It strips citizenship from babies born to legal visa holders

Everyone expects a birthright bill to target the children of people here illegally. This one goes further than that.

Under Steube's language, a baby born on American soil is denied citizenship if both parents are non-citizens and at least one of them is either here unlawfully or here legally in any status short of a green card.

Read that second half again. "Present in a lawful status other than lawful permanent residency" covers:

• A student on an F-1 visa
• An engineer on an H-1B
• A doctor on a J-1
• A refugee or someone with temporary protected status
• A tourist

These are people who followed the rules, got the paperwork, and are here legally. Their American-born children would not be Americans.

2. It makes it harder for U.S. citizens living abroad to pass on citizenship

This part has gotten almost no coverage, and it hits American families directly.

Right now, if you're a U.S. citizen who has a child overseas, you can pass your citizenship to that child if you lived in the United States for a total of five years, two of them after you turned 14.

Steube's bill doubles it: ten years total, four of them after age 14, and three of them in the five years right before the child is born.

That last clause is the one that bites. A soldier stationed overseas. A missionary. An engineer on a three-year posting. A teacher. If they've been out of the country for the five years before their baby arrives, their child is not automatically an American — no matter how long they lived here before that.

3. It requires a DNA test before a newborn gets anything

This is the part worth sitting with.

If a baby is born in the United States to a mother who is not lawfully present, and the claim to citizenship runs through the father — a U.S. national or green-card holder — then under Section 3 of Steube's bill that baby is not a citizen until DNA testing proves the father is the father.

Who pays? The bill answers plainly: the cost "shall be born by the parents or legal guardians."

And until that test comes back, no federal agency may issue that child a passport, certificate of citizenship, Social Security number, or any other document based on their citizenship.

So: an American father. A baby born in an American hospital. And no Social Security number for that child until the family finds an approved laboratory and pays the bill.

A Social Security number is not a nicety. It's how you get a child covered by health insurance. It's how you claim them on your taxes. It's how a hospital bills. Steube's bill turns it into something a family has to buy.

Why now: they think Kavanaugh left a door open

Steube's own framing is that he's answering a call from President Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Here's what that refers to. In Trump v. Barbara, Kavanaugh agreed the executive order was invalid — but he got there on statutory grounds rather than constitutional ones. Roberts's majority said the Constitution decides it. Kavanaugh said the current immigration statute decides it.

If Kavanaugh is right and Roberts is wrong, then Congress could change the statute and get the result the executive order couldn't. That is exactly what H.R. 9662 tries to do — it amends the Immigration and Nationality Act, not the Constitution.

But a majority of the Supreme Court did not agree with Kavanaugh. Six justices said the Constitution answers this, and pointed to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, which held that the Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. We wrote about that ruling when it came down.

Steube is legislating on the concurrence and ignoring the majority.

Where it stands, and what it says about the four of them

H.R. 9662 was referred to the Judiciary Committee on July 14 and has not moved since. It has three cosponsors out of 434 other members of the House.

That's a familiar picture. Morgan Griffith's bill to end citizenship for babies born in Guam has zero cosponsors. Brian Babin wrote the original House bill to end birthright citizenship. Marsha Blackburn kept looking for a workaround after the Court ruled.

These bills mostly don't pass. That is not the point of them. The point is the press release, the cable hit, the fundraising email — and Steube has been out promoting this one on friendly media weeks after the bill stopped moving.

But four members of Congress did put their names on this specific text. Not a resolution. Not a message bill about the border. A bill that says an American baby doesn't get a Social Security number until the parents pay a lab.

Greg Steube wrote it. Stephanie Bice, Ralph Norman and Tim Burchett signed it.

Their constituents should ask them about section 3.

Sources

• H.R. 9662, Birthright CLAIM Act of 2026 — Congress.gov
• Full text of H.R. 9662 as introduced — Government Publishing Office
• Rep. Steube Introduces Birthright CLAIM Act — Steube's office