Trump v. Barbara · ¶398

The Court also suggests that my interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is not consistent with the Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to any foreign power” requirement because a foreign nation can purport to exercise power over its original citizens even after they establish a domicile here. Ante, at 23–24. But, the Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause does not even attempt to be consistent with the Civil Rights Act’s requirement, since the children of temporary visitors are clearly subject to the foreign power of their homeland. See Part I–B–2, supra. Regardless, the Court is wrong about domiciliaries’ remaining “subject to” the foreign power of their country of birth. Although their nation of origin might purport to exercise jurisdiction over them, the United States would not have had to recognize that authority as lawful once those persons were domiciled here. See Part…

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