Trump v. Barbara · ¶249

Justice Harlan dissented in Elk, but he agreed that the Citizenship Clause referred to the same “complete jurisdiction.” Id., at 117. He dissented only because he thought that someone born in the territorial United States could become a citizen even if he became subject to its complete jurisdiction later in life. On Justice Harlan’s view, which was not uncommon at the time, the Citizenship Clause did not require that the person be born while subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. Id., at 116–121. Instead, a person could be born in the United States while not subject to its jurisdiction—as John Elk was because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth—but become subject to its jurisdiction later—as Elk did by “abandoning his tribe.” Id., at 122. On Justice Harlan’s view, following the law of domicile, persons became subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…

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