gloss · the reading room

Trump v. Barbara · ¶75

To avoid these problems, the principal dissent spends much of its time on the text of the Civil Rights Act. See post, at 2–4, 23–31, 35–36, 48–49, 59, 67–68, 87, 88–89. (JUSTICE ALITO does the same—albeit in service of a different result. See post, at 13–18, 20–21, 24–25, 36 (dissenting opinion).) The Civil Rights Act made citizens of “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.” 14 Stat. 27. The principal dissent contends that a person is “not subject to any foreign power” if (and only if ) he is “domiciled in” the United States, for it is then (and only then) that “his home nation” is forbidden from regulating his conduct. Post, at 3, 13–14. JUSTICE ALITO contends that a person is “not subject to any foreign power” if (and only if ) no other country would “automatically” make him a “national[],” whether he is domiciled here or not. Post, at 37.
Read in context ›

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