She accused Justice Clarence Thomas of echoing "one of Dred Scott's core tenets" in his opposition.
Jackson argued that the Fourteenth Amendment served as a broader protection against structural inequality. "Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people," she wrote.
She further critiqued the minority view as a regression toward outdated legal doctrines.
"Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and [Thomas] propose a return to its core tenet," Jackson asserted.
She categorized the opposing interpretation of the post-Civil War amendments as overly restrictive, dismissing Thomas's perspective as "myopic."
>>> Guardian Readers and Writers Recommend 11 Captivating Books
Jackson detailed how the Citizenship Clause should not be interpreted purely as a specific fix for a single era.
"Despite his longstanding endorsement of a 'colorblind' Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to 'freed slaves such as Dred Scott,'" she noted.
She rejected the argument that specific parental status disqualified children born within the territory, concluding that the Reconstruction period represented a foundational shift for civil rights.
"The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery," Jackson asserted.
Dissenting Views and Broader Context
Justice Clarence Thomas countered the majority, writing a dissent focused on a narrower historical application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
He maintained that permanent residency and allegiance were prerequisites for birthright privileges.
