[25-365] Trump v. Barbara

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Citizenship Clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.

It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance.

This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause.

When Congress used the term not subject to any foreign power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance.

Senator Trumbull explained that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else.

And in 1884, this court recognized that subject to the jurisdiction means owing direct and immediate allegiance.

The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens.

Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.

For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance, and the text of the clause presupposes domicile.

For decades following the clause's adoption, commentators recognized that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens.

And illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here.

Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations.

It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.

It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.

It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.

I welcome the Court's questions.

General Sauer, before we get into the broader national issues, would you start with Dred Scott? Dred Scott was a case about state citizenship.

It was a diversity case.

And, of course, we know what Chief Justice Taney did with that.

How does the Citizenship Clause respond specifically to Dred Scott and answers or changes or corrects its answer as to citizenship? The other point is The citizenship clause refers not just to national citizenship, but also to state citizenship.

Are we to have two different definitions for those? It's one word, citizens of the United States and citizens of the state wherein they reside.

So as you begin, I'd like you to go back at the beginning and be more specific about the answer And I want you to explain whether or not those two definitions are the same or related and what state citizenship is based on.

Thank you, Justice Thomas.

I'll maybe start by addressing Dred Scott.

As you alluded to the fact, Dred Scott imposed one of the worst injustices in the history of this Court, and it led to the outbreak of the Civil War.