Trump v. Barbara · ¶386

Wong Kim Ark also repeatedly emphasized that its holding was limited to domiciliaries. See Part I–E–3, supra. It did so seven times in the first paragraph and repeatedly after that. Id., at 652. And, presciently, Wong Kim Ark itself invoked this Court’s oft-repeated reminder that “general expressions” that “go beyond the case” should not “control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.” Id., at 679 (internal quotation marks omitted). “This is not quite ‘no, no, a thousand times no,’ but should have sufficed to dissuade the [Court] from invoking the case with respect to the distinct legal and factual issues presented here.” Learning Resources, 607 U. S., at 254–255, n. 6 (citation omitted).

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