Jackson rebukes Thomas over his birthright citizenship dissent
Skip to content
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson admonished fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for his dissent to the high court’s decision upholding birthright citizenship on Tuesday.
In a 20-page concurring opinion, Jackson accused Thomas of applying a “narrow vision” of the 14th Amendment in dissenting from the six-justice majority.
“Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott,’” Jackson wrote.
Thomas, joined in the minority by justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in his dissenting opinion the amendment — which grants automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S. — applies only to those “domiciled” in the U.S.
The conservative justice specifically referenced the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, in which it ruled enslaved African Americans were not U.S. citizens. Thomas argued the court got it wrong because “Blacks were entitled to citizenship” as Americans.
“They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” the longest-tenured member of the court wrote.
Foreign temporary visitors, on the other hand, are “attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war,” Thomas argued.
Jackson, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, ruled the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. — even those born to parents in the country illegally.
The decision invalidated President Trump’s executive order requiring a baby born on U.S. soil to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status to gain birthright citizenship.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also in the majority, disagreed with the aforementioned five justices on the question of whether the president’s order violated the 14th Amendment. He instead voted to block the policy under the Nationality Act of 1940, which mirrored the amendment’s language.
Jackson, whom Sotomayor partially joined in her opinion, repeatedly took Thomas to task for his interpretation of the amendment, even calling him “myopic” at one point.
Freed slaves, she noted, did not receive “new status” from the 14th Amendment. Instead, they were U.S. citizens simply because they were born in America, according to Jackson
“Justice Thomas’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery,” the most recent addition to the court wrote.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to uphold birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The majority, including Justices Jackson, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, determined that children born in the U.S. automatically receive citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration status. Justice Kavanaugh joined the outcome but on different constitutional grounds. This decision invalidated President Trump's executive order requiring at least one parent to have citizenship or permanent legal status. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the citizenship clause applies only to those 'domiciled' in the country and not to temporary foreign visitors. Thomas reasoned that foreign visitors lack the necessary bonds to the U.S. Justice Jackson responded with a concurring opinion criticizing Thomas's interpretation as inconsistent with his previous constitutional philosophy and overly narrow in scope relative to the Reconstruction Amendments' intended purpose.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
Skip to content
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson admonished fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for his dissent to the high court’s decision upholding birthright citizenship on Tuesday.
In a 20-page concurring opinion, Jackson accused Thomas of applying a “narrow vision” of the 14th Amendment in dissenting from the six-justice majority.
“Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott,’” Jackson wrote.
Thomas, joined in the minority by justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in his dissenting opinion the amendment — which grants automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S. — applies only to those “domiciled” in the U.S.
The conservative justice specifically referenced the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, in which it ruled enslaved African Americans were not U.S. citizens. Thomas argued the court got it wrong because “Blacks were entitled to citizenship” as Americans.
“They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” the longest-tenured member of the court wrote.
Foreign temporary visitors, on the other hand, are “attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war,” Thomas argued.
Jackson, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, ruled the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. — even those born to parents in the country illegally.
The decision invalidated President Trump’s executive order requiring a baby born on U.S. soil to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status to gain birthright citizenship.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also in the majority, disagreed with the aforementioned five justices on the question of whether the president’s order violated the 14th Amendment. He instead voted to block the policy under the Nationality Act of 1940, which mirrored the amendment’s language.
Jackson, whom Sotomayor partially joined in her opinion, repeatedly took Thomas to task for his interpretation of the amendment, even calling him “myopic” at one point.
Freed slaves, she noted, did not receive “new status” from the 14th Amendment. Instead, they were U.S. citizens simply because they were born in America, according to Jackson
“Justice Thomas’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery,” the most recent addition to the court wrote.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship with six justices in the majority The 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S. Justice Jackson, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett formed the majority Justice Kavanaugh joined the outcome but voted to block the policy under the Nationality Act of 1940 rather than the 14th Amendment Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented Thomas argued the citizenship clause applies only to those 'domiciled' in the U.S., not temporary foreign visitors The decision invalidated President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship Jackson accused Thomas of applying a 'narrow vision' of the 14th Amendment Jackson wrote that Thomas's position contradicts his stated colorblind constitutional philosophy Jackson characterized the 14th Amendment as a broad anticaste, antisubordination measure for the nation, not a limited remedy for slavery Thomas's interpretation is myopic
Read the full story at The Hill ↗
- The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, with six justices ruling the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S., regardless of parents' immigration status
- Justice Clarence Thomas dissented alongside Justices Alito and Gorsuch, arguing the citizenship clause applies only to those 'domiciled' in the U.S., not temporary foreign visitors
- Justice Jackson wrote a 20-page concurring opinion criticizing Thomas's interpretation as a 'narrow vision' that contradicts his stated colorblind constitutional approach
- The decision invalidated President Trump's executive order requiring at least one parent to have citizenship or permanent legal status for a U.S.-born child to gain birthright citizenship
- Jackson argued the 14th Amendment was a broad anticaste measure for the nation, not a specific remedy limited to freed slaves
How we verified this · single source · not yet corroborated
The thread
- SCOTUS to rule on birthright citizenship. And, U.S. murder rate nears new low
- Trump threatens to abolish birthright citizenship through Congress after supreme court rules against him – live
- Birthright citizenship decision gives advocates short-lived sigh of relief
- What is birthright citizenship, and what does the Supreme Court ruling say?