Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged a point made by Justice Samuel Alito regarding the interpretation of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. The discussion took place on Wednesday as both justices questioned ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang concerning birthright citizenship.
Justice Alito's Argument
Justice Alito proposed an explanation for Justice Gray's inclusion of "domicile" in the holding of Wong Kim Ark. He suggested that Gray sought to differentiate between groups of migrants, such as those exploited for labor on railroads and in mines, who were primarily men without clear intentions of permanent residency.
Alito argued that the opinion drew a distinction between these categories of people, which would have been understood at the time of the case's decision.
Cecillia Wang's Rebuttal
Cecillia Wang countered that Alito's explanation was not a plausible reason for the mention of domicile in Wong Kim Ark. Wang asserted that the controlling rule of decision was based on English common law, not requiring domicile as a central element, citing various historical precedents.
Wang asserted that the controlling rule of decision was based on English common law, which did not require domicile as a central element.
Justice Jackson's View
Justice Jackson indicated that she found merit in Justice Alito's point. She suggested that Justice Gray might have emphasized domicile to aid public acceptance of the case's outcome.
Jackson hypothesized that while domicile might not have been a strict part of the legal rule, Gray could have highlighted specific facts to ensure public acceptance of the birthright citizenship rule, especially considering the societal attitudes towards Chinese immigrants at that time.
Justice Jackson noted that this emphasis could have been a strategic consideration to foster public understanding and acceptance of the ruling.