Trump v. Barbara · ¶387

It is not surprising that Wong Kim Ark limited its holding to domiciliaries. The Government in Wong Kim Ark stipulated that Wong was domiciled in the United States and argued that domicile was irrelevant. See Part I–E–3, supra; Brief for Appellant, O. T. 1895, No. 904, at 13–29. The Court thus had little reason to consider what rule would apply to a temporary visitor. The Court was hardly likely to upset the consensus that the Citizenship Clause required domicile in a case where the issue was irrelevant given Wong’s domicile in this country. See Part I–E, supra.

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