Key Takeaways

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that De’Ai Postpartum Care Center will cease operations following a state lawsuit accusing it of facilitating unlawful “birth tourism.”
• The lawsuit alleged the Houston-area operation coached primarily Chinese clients on obtaining tourist visas while concealing that their principal purpose for entering the United States was to give birth.
• The shutdown does not alter birthright citizenship law, which remains protected under current federal law and the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Trump v. Barbara.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that a Houston-area postpartum care operation accused of helping foreign nationals circumvent U.S. immigration restrictions has been shut down following litigation filed by his office earlier this year.

The September 18 announcement concerns De’Ai Postpartum Care Center, a business Texas sued in April 2026 along with operators Lin Suling and Lai Wan Lin-Chan. The case was filed in Fort Bend County District Court as State of Texas v. De’Ai Postpartum Care Center, et al., Case No. 26-DCV-343505.

Paxton’s office said the center will cease operations and stop assisting clients with arrangements for giving birth in the United States. The Attorney General characterized the result as a legal victory, saying the operation had assisted Chinese nationals seeking to enter Texas for childbirth while allegedly evading immigration restrictions.

The state's case, however, involved significantly more than the politically contentious question of birthright citizenship.

According to Texas’ original petition, De’Ai advertised itself as providing prenatal, postpartum, medical, nursing and immigration-related services to foreign clients. The state alleged the operation marketed heavily to Chinese nationals and claimed responsibility for more than “1,000+ American-born babies.”

Texas alleged the defendants helped prepare visa applications and supporting materials while coaching clients to identify tourism as the primary purpose of their travel when, according to the state, their actual purpose was giving birth in the United States. The lawsuit further alleged that clients were advised to obtain visas before becoming pregnant or before pregnancy became detectable.

Those allegations matter because federal immigration rules draw an important distinction between traveling while pregnant and obtaining a visitor visa specifically for birth tourism.

The U.S. Department of State says that traveling to the United States primarily to give birth for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child is not a permissible use of a visitor visa. Legitimate medical treatment can qualify for a B-2 visa under appropriate circumstances, but birth tourism for citizenship purposes does not.

Texas therefore framed much of its case around alleged deception rather than simply the act of a foreign national giving birth in the United States.

The state alleged violations of Texas Penal Code provisions governing tampering with governmental records and unlawful concealment or harboring. It also invoked the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging misrepresentations concerning immigration assistance, medical services, nursing qualifications and claimed affiliations with health-care providers.

Among other remedies, Texas originally sought temporary and permanent injunctions, forfeiture of the defendants’ business rights, attorneys’ fees and civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each alleged DTPA violation.

The defendants had previously denied the state's allegations, according to court records cited by Texas Public Radio.

The Attorney General's September 18 announcement confirms that the center is ceasing operations, but the public release does not spell out whether the resolution included monetary penalties, an admission of liability or findings on each legal claim asserted in the original complaint. That distinction is important because closure of the business does not necessarily establish that every allegation in the state's petition was adjudicated on the merits.

The case also should not be confused with the separate constitutional fight over whether children born in the United States acquire citizenship.

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Barbara, holding that President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14160, which attempted to restrict citizenship for certain children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgment blocking the order.

That means Texas' action against De’Ai did not invalidate the citizenship of children born through the operation. Instead, the state's case targeted the alleged conduct used to obtain visas, operate the business and market its services.

Legally, that distinction may be the most significant aspect of the case.

A state can pursue alleged deceptive business practices and violations of its own laws without necessarily deciding who qualifies as a United States citizen. Immigration and citizenship remain predominantly federal matters. By structuring its case around consumer protection, governmental records, harboring and public-nuisance theories, Texas pursued the business itself rather than attempting directly to rewrite federal citizenship law.

The De’Ai litigation also arrives as Texas officials continue examining alleged birth-tourism practices elsewhere in the state, including investigations involving South Texas health-care facilities.

For now, the immediate result is clear: De’Ai Postpartum Care Center is closing. What remains less clear from the Attorney General’s announcement is whether the litigation produced a detailed judicial ruling that could serve as precedent for similar cases, or whether the dispute ended through an agreement that leaves some of the broader legal questions unresolved.

Primary documents: Texas Attorney General’s original April 2026 announcement · Read the State of Texas complaint· U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Barbara