Trump v. Barbara · ¶397

The Court’s responses to my view also undermine its own. The Court criticizes my view for depending on “the parents’ status, not the child’s.” Ante, at 14. But, the Court’s view depends on the “parents’ status,” too. The Court, for example, excludes from citizenship the children of “representatives of foreign sovereigns” or enemy invaders. Ante, at 3, 15. Unless newborn babies are serving as international diplomats, the Court’s account thus turns on parents’ status. Along the same lines, the Court asks why “[w]ords appearing frequently in the Executive Order— ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘lawful,’ ‘temporary’—are absent from the Clause.” Ante, at 22. But, again, if that is a problem, then it is one for the Court’s theory as well. After all, the Court’s exceptions—for “foreign representatives,” “Indians,” and invading “enemies”—do not appear in the Clause, either. Finally, the Court suggests that…

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