re: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 30

quote:

---

This wold mean US law would no apply to non-immigrants. They would be ABOVE the law. Could not be charged with crimes. How would we deport them? Under what jurisdiction?

---

quote:

---

## Concurring Opinion

**Author:** Justice Jackson.
**Joined by:** Justice Sotomayor (Introduction and Part I).

Justice Jackson wrote separately to counter the historical narrative presented in Justice Thomas's dissent.

**Main Legal Arguments and Findings:**

* **Anti-Caste Framework:** Justice Jackson argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was an "anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation," rather than merely a narrow remedy exclusively for freed slaves.


* **Universalist Vision:** Tracing the activism of Black Americans at Colored Conventions and the rhetoric of Frederick Douglass, she demonstrated that the push for birthright citizenship was rooted in universal human rights, actively rejecting the concept of a citizenship restricted by bloodline or unique parental status.


* **Rejection of Spot-Treatment:** She criticized the dissent for treating the Fourteenth Amendment as a narrow "spot treatment," warning that such a perspective ignores the intent of the framers who deliberately broadened the text to cover groups like Chinese and Romani immigrants (Jackson, J., concurring, pp. 2, 11-14).



> **Key Quote:** "The Fourteenth Amendment's universalist aims should forever be the death knell for this kind of claim—one that seeks to make bloodline the marker of birthright." (Jackson, J., concurring, p. 20).
>
>

---

## Concurrence in Judgment and Dissent in Part

**Author:** Justice Kavanaugh.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the deciding vote against the Executive Order but diverged sharply from the majority's constitutional rationale.

**Main Legal Arguments and Findings:**

* **Statutory Violation (Concurrence):** He argued the case should have been decided on statutory grounds alone. Because 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) mirrors the 14th Amendment's text, it incorporates the fixed exceptions recognized in *Wong Kim Ark*. Therefore, the Executive Order is an unlawful overreach by the President that bypasses Congress.


* **Constitutional Flexibility (Dissent):** He dissented from the constitutional holding, arguing that the exceptions in *Wong Kim Ark* should not be viewed as a "permanently frozen or closed set" (Opinion of Kavanaugh, J., p. 5).


* **Application to New Circumstances:** Noting that mass illegal immigration is a modern phenomenon unknown to the drafters of 1868, Kavanaugh posited that Congress *could* constitutionally legislate new exceptions to birthright citizenship for unauthorized or temporary immigrants, akin to historical exceptions for foreign sovereigns (Opinion of Kavanaugh, J., pp. 6-8).



> **Key Quote:** "Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship... But Congress has not yet done so." (Opinion of Kavanaugh, J., p. 10).
>
>

---

## Dissenting Opinions

### The Thomas Dissent

**Author:** Justice Thomas.
**Joined by:** Justice Gorsuch.

Justice Thomas delivered a rigorous originalist dissent centered on the historical concept of "domicile."

**Main Legal Arguments and Findings:**

* **The Domicile Requirement:** He argued that at common law and during Reconstruction, a person was only "subject to the jurisdiction" of a government if they maintained their legal domicile there.


* **Meaning of the Civil Rights Act:** Tracing the legislative history of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Thomas argued that the phrase "not subject to any foreign power" was explicitly designed to exclude temporary visitors and foreigners whose primary allegiance remained tied to their home country.


* **Reinterpretation of Precedent:** Thomas argued that *Wong Kim Ark* was strictly limited to its facts—namely, children of parents who possessed a "permanent domicil and residence in the United States" (Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 44).


* **Impact on the Executive Order:** Because unauthorized immigrants and temporary visitors are legally domiciled in foreign nations, their children remain subject to foreign powers and are not constitutionally entitled to American citizenship.



> **Key Quote:** "The Citizenship Order is therefore, insofar as it applies to persons not domiciled here, consistent with the Citizenship Clause." (Thomas, J., dissenting, p. 57).
>
>

### The Alito Dissent

**Author:** Justice Alito.

Justice Alito also dissented, focusing on the incompatibility of the British common law framework with American constitutional principles.

**Main Legal Arguments and Findings:**

* **Rejection of Feudal *Jus Soli*:** Alito argued that the British doctrine of birthright subjecthood was a feudal concept based on perpetual servitude to a monarch, a framework the Declaration of Independence fundamentally destroyed.


* **Exclusive Jurisdiction:** Analyzing the Fourteenth Amendment alongside the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Alito determined that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires a person to be completely free of obligations to any foreign power.


* **Foreign Obligations of Unauthorized Migrants:** He highlighted that foreign nations (such as Mexico and Guatemala) automatically confer nationality and corresponding civic duties (like military service) on children born abroad to their citizens (Alito, J., dissenting, p. 37). Consequently, these children are "subject to a foreign power" and lack the exclusive allegiance required by the Fourteenth Amendment.


* **Role of Congress:** Alito concluded that while the Constitution does not mandate birthright citizenship for these children, Congress retains the legislative authority to confer citizenship upon them if it chooses (Alito, J., dissenting, p. 2).



> **Key Quote:** "The Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country." (Alito, J., dissenting, p. 1).

---

quote:

---

the disagreement among the justices appears to centre around the notion of domicile; on one hand, the majority upholds the common law rule of jus soli, whereby a person born on King's soil is entitled to protection by and allengiance to the King; the minority - especially Thomas and Gorsuch - say the 14th Amendmt clause requires that the child parents at least make the US their permanent domicile for the child to be a US-born citizen. Interestingly, Gorsuch say the EO would have not survived other narrower challenges. Major ruling, lots of studying lie ahead

---

quote:

---

In the most important opinions, they’re f*cking traitors and allow their feelings and emotions to dictate their bad judgment.

---

quote:

---

the disagreement among the justices appears to centre around the notion of domicile; on one hand, the majority upholds the common law rule of jus soli, whereby a person born on King's soil is entitled to protection by and allengiance to the King; the minority - especially Thomas and Gorsuch - say the 14th Amendmt clause requires that the child parents at least make the US their permanent domicile for the child to be a US-born citizen. Interestingly, Gorsuch say the EO would have not survived other narrower challenges. Major ruling, lots of studying lie ahead

---

quote:

---

Indeed. If people here illegally are not domiciled, how can they be deported? From where? They aren't here.

---

quote:

---

So did Kavanaugh open the door for Congress to act? I know they don't want to but the water is at a boil with overwhelming support for ending this shite.

---

quote:

---

So did Kavanaugh open the door for Congress to act?

---