Trump v. Barbara · ¶20

Because the sovereign’s power (and thus his duty) was limited in various respects, so too was the scope of this rule. He could not demand allegiance from—for he could not pro- tect—those born in lands that he did not control. Id., at 18a, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. (Among that group were the people born in the King’s lost dominions—“France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c.”—over which he claimed an “absolute right” but had no actual power to rule. Ibid.) The same held true even in discrete areas within his kingdom that were temporarily outside his control. See id., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399 (if “enemies” were to “possess” a “castle or fort,” their children would not be born “under the King’s ligeance”). And the same held true for ambassadors (and their families), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritoriality—to remain on foreign soil and thus “under the ligeance” of their home…

slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.