Trump v. Barbara · ¶62
Where the Government and the principal dissent err is with their definition of “allegiance.” They concede that Cal vin’s Case and Blackstone state the rule that prevailed before the Declaration of Independence—that a natural “allegiance” arises for all children who are “born here . . . under the protection of the sovereign.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 64–65, 136; see post, at 75–76 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Yet according to the Government and the principal dissent, “the United States’ conception of allegiance”—at some unspecified point in time—broke “from Great Britain’s.” Brief for Petitioners 16. (The Government has variously dated this change to the late-18th century, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 137, the early19th century, see id., at 26, 76, and the Reconstruction era, see id., at 3; the principal dissent declines to offer a date.) Natural allegiance, they contend, was no longer sufficient for…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.