It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect.

In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a dissent is just an essay with no force of law.

▲

azeemba 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting.

Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a federal statute that congress can overturn (but the president cannot)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

▲

datsci_est_2015 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Literal calvinball by the conservative justices. None of that is in the constitution.

	▲	enoint 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thomas and Alito complained that they were being impeded from setting executive policy. Very easy to understand the argument that this court is too small.

▲

NetMageSCW 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If it said “regardless of the citizenship status of the parents” they would still find a way to disagree.

	▲	dgellow 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The joke that Supreme Court judges are high priests interpreting the constitution as if it was holy scripture was in fact accurate description all along

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Per Thomas's dissent:

> The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.