Trump v. Barbara · ¶316
This interpretation accords with the contemporaneous evidence that would have informed the public meaning of the text. It is consistent with the Civil Rights Act’s requirement that citizens be “not subject to any foreign power.” 14 Stat. 27. A person born in the United States to temporary visitors was subject to a foreign power—namely, the power of his home country in which he retained his domicile. See The Venus, 8 Cranch, at 277–279; The Pizarro, 2 Wheat., at 246. It is consistent with the early American law of state and national citizenship, which turned on domicile. Brown, 8 Pet., at 115; The Venus, 8 Cranch, at 277–278; Webster Report 2–3. It overrules Dred Scott because it restores the rule of decision under which Scott should have won— namely, that he was entitled to sue as a “citizen” of Missouri because he had a “permanent domicil in the State.” Dred Scott, 19 How., at 531…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.