Trump v. Barbara · ¶328

The Court does not attempt to explain how its reading of the Citizenship Clause comports with the Civil Rights Act’s citizenship provision. The Court does not present evidence that the children of temporary visitors were “not subject to any foreign power,” as the Civil Rights Act required. Temporary visitors were subject to the foreign power of the government of their domicile. See Part I–B–2, supra; see also Brief for Tennessee et al. as Amici Curiae 8–9. The Court also does not present any evidence that the Citizenship Clause had a different meaning from the Civil Rights Act. As no party here disputes, the two provisions were agreed to have been synonymous with respect to foreigners. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2890. As the plaintiffs’ counsel put it, “the Framers were trying to do the same thing with the language in both.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 106–107; accord, id., at 120.

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