Why the US supreme court’s birthright ruling brings only partial relief

There is anger the decision was not unanimous, and worry that dissenting justices have given weight to fringe theories

There is relief that the supreme court halted Donald Trump’s effort to unilaterally end the longstanding American principle that almost everyone born on US soil is a citizen. In a 6-3 ruling, the court averted a crisis wherein more than 250,000 children each year would have been born in the US without citizenship, and many would be stateless.

It upheld – just barely – an American ideal that anyone born in this country is equally deserving of its citizenship and the privileges thereof, a culture of assimilation and a multiracial society.

Then, there is anger that the decision was not unanimous – that it was so close. Six justices agreed to strike down Trump’s executive order – issued immediately after he took office last year – to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. But only five justices concurred it was unconstitutional. Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, wrote that the order ran counter to federal law but did not, in his opinion, violate the 14th amendment of the constitution – which guarantees equal civil and legal rights and grants citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”, including formerly enslaved people after the US civil war.

There is worry that the three conservative justices who dissented have given weight and legitimacy to fringe theories in legal scholarship that challenge the longstanding understanding of American citizenship.