Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Tuesday criticized Justice Clarence Thomas for reflecting “one of Dred Scott’s core tenets” by opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld birthright .
In her concurrence with the majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, contended that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was historically meant to encompass all individuals born in the United States, including the offspring of illegal immigrants.
This stands in contrast to assertion that the amendment was specifically ratified to grant citizenship to slaves who were freed following the Civil War.
Also Read:
Here’s what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said
“Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people. And the Great Emancipator eventually foresaw that the only path forward that could prevent a return — in any form — to slavery and race-based subordination was to link the fates of all,” Jackson said.
“Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and [Thomas] propose a return to its core tenet. Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship.”
By referencing “,” Jackson alludes to the 1857 Supreme Court ruling in which the majority determined that individuals of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
Here’s what Justice Clarence Thomas said
However, according to Thomas, Jackson’s broad interpretation of the historical context surrounding the lacks foundation.
Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress effectively overturned Dred Scott, initially through the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and subsequently with the Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas stated. “Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”
Thomas proceeded to elaborate on the difference he perceives between Black Americans and foreign nationals living in the country.
Individuals of African descent were granted citizenship as they were Americans, the justice said, adding that they had no alternative homeland, did not owe loyalty to any foreign nation, and were not under the jurisdiction of any other authority.
“The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war.”
Thomas contended that citizenship as defined by the necessitates being born in the United States and possessing a legal concept he refers to as “domicile,” which encompasses both an individual’s physical residence and their enduring loyalty to the nation. According to Thomas, the offspring of foreign temporary visitors do not meet this criterion, as they, while under U.S. laws during their stay, remain affiliated with another sovereign and are not entirely “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a constitutional context.
In response, Jackson criticized this perspective, labeling it as “myopic.”
