The Conversation US haberine göre Justice Jackson’s birthright citizenship opinion includes Black Americans in the story of the nation’s search for equality.

, on March 6, 2023. Joe Raedle/Getty Images In the annals of Supreme Court decisions, the public likely remembers what justices wrote for the court in famous cases , such as the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that outlawed racial segregation in public schools.

Or perhaps the public remembers great dissenting opinions that display foresight and speak across the ages. Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case , which legalized racial segregation, is a shining example.

But Supreme Court scholars and the public alike seldom pay much attention to concurring opinions , in which a justice expounds on the views of their colleagues in the majority. ” On June 30, 2026, in the Trump v. Barbara ruling, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed how wrong that view can be when she delivered a monumental concurring opinion in the birthright citizenship case .

S. soil. The decision invalidated President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born to foreign parents who are unlawfully in the United States.

Jackson, however, used her concurrence to go far beyond that and offer a new understanding of the origins of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship and its promise of equal treatment. She did so while emphasizing the singular contributions of Black Americans to that endeavor. Along the way, Jackson criticized Justice Clarence Thomas and the court’s dominant originalist jurisprudence – centered on interpreting the Constitution based on how it was understood when it was adopted – for distorting the historical record.

Jackson has previously signaled that a responsible use of history requires examining all relevant sources instead of cherry-picking among them to make a particular point. As a politics scholar who has written about history and law , I believe that years from now, when Americans look back on Trump v. Barbara, it will be Jackson, not Roberts, whom they remember.

No shrinking violet During her brief tenure on the court, Jackson has shown herself to be no shrinking violet . From the start, she has made her voice heard during oral arguments and in her written opinions. ” Since then, nothing has changed about Jackson’s style on the bench.

” Jackson also is not shy about writing dissenting opinions , and the occasional concurrence, whether in combination with others or alone. In both her dissents and concurrences , Thomas, the court’s only other Black member and its leading proponent of originalism, has been one of her main targets . Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on pending judicial nominations on April 28, 2021, in Washington.

” Originalism, Jackson-style Jackson has also called herself an originalist . However, she departs from Thomas’ brand of originalism. For Jackson, to understand how any provision of the Constitution was understood requires unearthing sources of constitutional meaning that have been largely ignored by others on the court.

That vision was on display in her concurring opinion in the birthright citizenship case. There, Jackson paid particular attention to what Black Americans did in inspiring and crafting the 14th Amendment. This contrasts with the traditional originalist story that highlights white protagonists such as Pennsylvania Rep.

Thaddeus Stevens, who introduced the proposal to add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, or President Andrew Johnson, who resisted the 14h Amendment on the grounds that it infringed on states’ rights. Justice Thomas embraced this sort of vision in Trump v. Barbara .

As he tells it, the birth of the 14th Amendment can be traced to the concerns of members of the Reconstruction Congress that the 1866 Civil Rights Act , which extended certain fundamental rights to “all persons born in the United States,” would be repealed or overturned in the courts. Black people have little or no role in Thomas’ account. Black Americans and birthright citizenship Jackson’s opinion registers her impatience with such an exclusion.

” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Chief Justice John Roberts walk down the steps of the Supreme Court on Sept. 30, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images As Jackson recounts, “In the decades leading up to the ratification of the 14th amendment, black Americans organized and gathered at more than 600 local and national conventions across the country.

” And in a pointed dig at her colleague, Jackson writes that the “distortion of historical facts – retellings that reimagine and repurpose past events to lend credence to misbegotten aims” – poses a grave threat to the constitutional project and America’s well-being. Extending the work of the 1619 Project Jackson’s concurrence in the birthright case builds on the approach to history taken by the so-called 1619 Project . ” Nikole Hannah-Jones , creator of the 1619 Project, insists “the United States simply would not exist without us.

” Jackson fully embraces that story and, in her concurring opinion in Trump v. S. restated and renewed its founding commitment to equality.

She suggests that the 14th Amendment would not have come into being without similar “patriotic efforts” by Black Americans. ” That is why I believe Jackson’s concurrence will be remembered as one of the great opinions produced by a Supreme Court justice. Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.