{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicopf4nbh6cv5i4bozfjsmzn7pspznuucv5hi66rq6utj4uzx4ezm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:qefo6jhzy4lvocnzakfk7rbi/app.bsky.feed.post/3mpjnw55hdtz2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreie7bca3tkrmbtwxeryi6pbqeccj576hx6msipqqegey6fxbwviajm"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 117827
  },
  "path": "/post/212541/john-roberts-samuel-alito-dissent-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-30T16:04:46.000Z",
  "site": "https://newrepublic.com",
  "tags": [
    "Breaking News",
    "Politics",
    "Republican Party",
    "Donald Trump",
    "Supreme Court",
    "Supreme Court Watch",
    "John Roberts",
    "Samuel Alito",
    "Birthright Citizenship",
    "Citizenship",
    "u.s. citizens",
    "Dissent",
    "ruled",
    "argued"
  ],
  "textContent": "Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts called out Justice Samuel Alito’s nonsensical argument about birthright citizenship.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that children born in the United States to parents who were undocumented or temporarily in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause.\n\nIn his separate dissent, Alito argued that immigrant parents, in order for their child to automatically be made an American citizen, could not be subject to any foreign power. But he contended that some people who had done “everything within their power to become United States citizens can be seen as no longer subject to any foreign power.”\n\nBut Roberts argued that this kind of “ad hoc exemption” was plainly inconsistent with Alito’s own interpretation of the Civil Rights Act.\n\n“He does not explain how that exception can be squared with his view of the text, which (to repeat) is that anyone ‘automatically’ made a [‘national’] of his ‘parents’ native country’ was not entitled to citizenship,” Roberts wrote.\n\nThat wasn’t the only reason Alito’s dissent was a mess.\n\nIn closing, Alito argued that the majority’s interpretation “saddles this country with an ancient British rule that even the United Kingdom has abandoned,” referring to jus soli, or the right of soil. But the British government scrapped this law by passing the British Nationality Act of 1981—not by asking the courts to rewrite the nation’s founding documents.",
  "title": "Roberts Trashes Alito’s Dissent on Supreme Court Birthright Ruling"
}