Trump v. Barbara · ¶69

The congressional debates over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment confirm our view. The principal dissent (and the Government) lean heavily on a handful of ambiguous floor statements referencing “temporary sojourners” and “foreigners.” See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1117 (Rep. Wilson) (“it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners” do not fall within the Act’s scope (emphasis added)); id., at 2890 (Sen. Howard) (the Citizenship Clause “w[ould] not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers”). Far more frequent and explicit, however, were statements embracing the common law. See, e.g., id., at 498 (Sen. Trumbull); id., at 570 (Sen. Morrill); id., at 1124 (Rep. Cook); id., at 1832 (Rep. Lawrence); id., at 2768 (Sen. Wade); id.,…

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