Donald Trump suffered a major Supreme Court defeat in his effort to restrict birthright citizenship.

Days later, he returned with two executive orders designed to reach a similar destination through a different legal route.

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman believes the maneuver will collapse almost immediately.

“Laughable.”

“Cockamamie.”

“Unconstitutional as can be.”

Those were among the descriptions Litman used during an episode of Talking Feds as he dismantled the legal theory underpinning Trump’s latest attempt to redefine who becomes an American citizen at birth.

The core problem, Litman argued, is brutally simple:

The Constitution does not give the president the power to decide who is a citizen.

Trump’s new orders follow the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Trump v. Barbara, which rejected his earlier attempt to end birthright citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment declares that people born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

Trump’s strategy relies on dramatically narrowing that phrase.

His administration argues that some children born on U.S. soil should not qualify for automatic citizenship because their parents entered the country illegally, belong to designated hostile groups or traveled to America specifically to give birth.

Litman said that interpretation has almost no support among the justices.

According to him, only Justice Clarence Thomas embraced the reading on which Trump’s orders depend. The Supreme Court majority explicitly rejected it, with Chief Justice John Roberts explaining that “subject to the jurisdiction” essentially means subject to American law.

That creates an immediate obstacle for the White House.

People who enter the country unlawfully are still subject to U.S. law. They can be arrested, prosecuted, detained and deported precisely because American legal authority applies to them.

The same is true of suspected terrorists and foreign enemies present inside the United States.

“Are alien enemies subject to the laws? Of course they are,” Litman said. “Are terrorists subject to the laws? Of course they are.”

If those groups are subject to American law, their U.S.-born children cannot easily be excluded from citizenship using the constitutional phrase the administration has chosen.

Trump’s first order reportedly attempts to create several new exceptions to birthright citizenship.

These include children born to people classified as alien enemies, members of designated foreign terrorist organizations and parents who entered the United States for the purpose of giving birth.

Litman described the order’s underlying rationale as a “cockamamie argument.”

More importantly, he predicted that courts would invalidate it as soon as the administration attempted to enforce it.

The executive branch can administer immigration law, direct federal agencies and establish enforcement priorities within statutory and constitutional limits.

But the Fourteenth Amendment gives “zero power for the president to decide who is a citizen,” Litman said.

Changing that constitutional rule would ordinarily require a new constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court interpretation supporting the administration’s position—not a presidential signature.

Trump’s second executive order focuses on so-called birth tourism.

Foreign nationals sometimes travel to the United States late in pregnancy so that their children will receive American citizenship at birth. Critics argue that the practice exploits immigration rules and turns citizenship into a commercial service.

Litman said a narrowly written policy addressing entry at the border could potentially survive.

The federal government possesses broad authority to determine whether noncitizens may enter the country. Officials could potentially deny visas or admission when they conclude that someone is misrepresenting the purpose of a trip or planning to violate immigration rules.

But preventing entry is legally different from stripping citizenship from a child already born on American soil.

If Trump uses the second order merely to guide visa screening or border decisions, courts may uphold parts of it.

If he uses it to deny citizenship after birth, Litman suggested that it will collide with the same Fourteenth Amendment barrier as the first order.

“One is going down as soon as they use it,” he predicted. “And the second will depend on how they use it.”

Litman’s analysis is not itself a court ruling. Trump’s lawyers may offer different constitutional arguments, and the legality of each policy will depend on its exact language, implementation and the plaintiffs who challenge it.

But the Supreme Court’s recent decision leaves the administration with little room to maneuver.

The chief justice’s interpretation directly undercuts the claim that undocumented immigrants or other targeted groups exist beyond American jurisdiction.

That may explain why Trump’s orders attempt to create narrow, emotionally powerful categories instead of openly declaring that all children of undocumented parents are excluded.

Words such as “terrorist,” “enemy” and “birth tourism” make the policy sound like a defense against exploitation or national-security threats.

The constitutional question, however, remains unchanged:

Was the child born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction?

For generations, the answer has generally meant citizenship, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats who are not subject to ordinary U.S. jurisdiction in the same way.

Trump is attempting to expand those exceptions through executive action after the Supreme Court rejected his broader theory.

Litman’s verdict is that the maneuver is not a clever workaround.

It is the same defeated argument wearing two new disguises.

Trump can sign as many executive orders as he wants.

But unless the Constitution changes, a president cannot edit the Fourteenth Amendment with a pen.