Trump v. Barbara · ¶77

For the dissents and the Government, Wong Kim Ark is essentially irrelevant. They attempt to narrow that precedent by noting that the Court’s opinion repeatedly referred to the domicile of Wong’s parents. That is true. But “the reasoning underlying” the holding of Wong Kim Ark cannot be squared with a domicile requirement of the sort the Government envisions. Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U. S. 119, 136 (2019). As we have already explained, the Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause. It traced an unbroken line from the English common law, into the founding and antebellum eras, and through the debates, to the Clause’s ratification. Yet at no point did the Court identify any evidence in the historical record that the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.

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