The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday to uphold birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, protecting citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents and temporary visa holders. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 91-page dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the majority "repurposed" the 14th Amendment and "devalues" citizenship.
Thomas's Dissent and Historical Arguments
Thomas wrote: "I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent." He leaned heavily on Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to enslaved people, framing the 14th Amendment as a narrow corrective for formerly enslaved individuals. The majority also cited Dred Scott, noting the amendment was meant to repudiate it.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded in her concurrence: "Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott.’"
Reactions and Implications
Samuel Breidbart, a lawyer with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Project, told HuffPost: "Thomas is trying to make the law much more complex than it is. The law is not that complex." Matthew Brogdon, senior director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University, suggested Thomas's dissent could "problematize the historical record" and lay groundwork for future change.
Thomas also used divisive rhetoric like "foreign birth tourists" and "illegal aliens," echoing President Donald Trump's language. Kristen Clarke, general counsel for the NAACP, told HuffPost she saw "strong strains of xenophobia and a startling degree of anti-immigrant animus" in the dissents. She called Thomas's reading "revisionist" with "no support in text, history or precedent."
The ruling dealt a significant blow to Trump, who sought to end over 150 years of legal precedent. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito also filed separate opinions.
