Jackson rebukes Thomas over his birthright citizenship dissent
Source: The Hill
06/30/26 7:20 PM ET
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson admonished fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for his dissent to the high courts 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 Courts 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.
Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5948630-justice-jackson-clarence-thomas/
The entire ruling was 194 pages and Thomas' dissent was almost half of that at 91 pages.
no_hypocrisy
(55,789 posts)Thomas must feel like his first day of orientation at law school again.
Ray Bruns
(6,996 posts)AltairIV
(1,078 posts)Apparently that dumbass needs to learn what a dictionary is for.
ProudMNDemocrat
(21,033 posts)Being that he was born in the late 1940's when Jim Crow was in place where he lived and his parents had to fight and claw their way to FULL membership in the America Club.
What a dumb ass he is and always will be.
Scubamatt
(337 posts)the crazy right wing argument that undocumented individuals were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" at the same time those same crazies are supporting the exercise of governmental power to round those people up, deprive them of their rights and liberties and otherwise exert the full range of governmental power against them. The clause was intended to exclude diplomats (who, for example, if caught doing a crime are immune from prosecution) and sadly, Native Americans, who were viewed as sovereign nations within the territorial limits of the United States. I know expecting consistency from conservatives seems pretty silly, but you think even they would be embarrassed about talking out of both sides of their big mouths.