Trump v. Barbara · ¶76

Neither theory works. As to the principal dissent, it is simply not true that domicile in a new nation severs one’s ties to the old one. See Story §540, at 451 (“Nations generally assert a claim to regulate the rights, duties, obligations, and acts of their own citizens, wherever they may be domiciled.”). If the test truly is whether a person is “amenable to the laws” of two governments at once, post, at 14 (THOMAS, J., dissenting), then it is a test that every child born to a foreign parent fails—a result that even the principal dissent cannot stomach. JUSTICE ALITO seems to recognize this bind, so he would create an ad hoc exception for those whose parents have “done everything within their power . . . to become Americans.” Post, at 27. He does not explain how that exception can be squared with his view of the text, which (to repeat) is that anyone “automatically” made a “national[]”…

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