Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Tuesday issued a scathing concurring opinion, directly challenging Justice Clarence Thomas' interpretation of the 14th Amendment in a birthright citizenship case.
The court upheld birthright citizenship in a 6-3 ruling, rejecting an executive order from the Trump administration that sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who were in the country illegally or temporarily. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, argued in his dissent that the 14th Amendment was intended to secure equal rights for freed Black individuals and had been repurposed for political agendas. He contended that the amendment and the preceding Civil Rights Act ensured citizenship for those born in the U.S. and "not subject to any foreign power."
Justice Jackson, however, described this view as "ahistorical," asserting that the amendment's text did not limit citizenship to freed Black people or those in similar situations. She argued that the Trump administration and Thomas were misinterpreting the amendment, which initially included Black Americans but was later expanded to encompass all ethnic backgrounds. Jackson stated that this interpretation denied the "universalist vision" of the amendment's framers and pitted Black Americans against immigrants, which she argued the amendment's proponents did not intend.
The Trump administration had argued that the birthright citizenship clause and subsequent court precedents meant to limit citizenship at birth to children of parents "domiciled" in the U.S., requiring them to owe allegiance to America. Despite the Supreme Court's conservative majority frequently ruling in favor of Trump's policies, the justices rejected his administration's proposed limitations on birthright citizenship.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Justice Thomas expressed doubt that the ruling would "stand the test of time" and suggested it "devalues" citizenship. In contrast, Justice Jackson stated that the ruling "preserved the most basic animating principle of our Nation’s founding—that all human beings are created equal."
Following the decision, former President Donald Trump called the ruling "bad for our Country" and urged Congress to begin working on ending birthright citizenship, stating it would have his "Complete and Total Support." Trump's plan faced unanimous opposition from lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court. Challenging birthright citizenship, once considered an obscure legal theory, gained prominence during Trump's presidency, with him attending the Supreme Court hearing on the matter.
Trump has previously made unsubstantiated claims that the U.S. is unique in offering birthright citizenship, despite more than 30 countries, including Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, providing similar provisions.