Ann E. Marimow

So first she hears from Chief Justice Roberts, who makes the point that the administration has made over time to point out that the opinion in Wong Kim Ark does include the word domicile 20 times.

And he asks sort of how this can be dismissed as irrelevant if the court from that era chose to include that in the opinion.

You hear similar questions from Justice Gorsuch about the history.

And then perhaps more surprising, Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also starts asking questions about the appearance of the word domicile throughout the opinion.

And in response, similar to the Solicitor General, she started pulling on different aspects of history.

We have an 1896 State Department regulation.

all to make this case about the longstanding broad principle of birthright citizenship.

Again, after setting out the English common law rule and the exception... She went back to English common law and other areas of history, citing even the example of Japanese nationals who were interned during World War II.

When the United States was detaining Japanese nationals... Whose children, babies who were born were U.S.

citizens...

Yes, exactly.

Even in wartime, she's saying this principle was affirmed over and over again throughout history.

And many of the justices seem satisfied with her answers to questions about the word domicile.

But one of the most skeptical justices seemed to be Justice Samuel Alito.

Who posed a hypothetical about a boy born to an Iranian father.

And he asked, wouldn't the child be subject to military service?

And doesn't that child still have allegiance to that country?

There's no surprise that he brought up this example since we are at war with Iran.

And in response, Wong tried to broaden the scope to say, you know, if that's the case, what about children of Irish immigrants?

What about children of Italian immigrants?