Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on birthright citizenship “devalues” American citizenship because he believes citizenship should not automatically be granted to everyone born in the United States.

In his dissent, Thomas said the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War. He argued that the amendment was not meant to extend automatic citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or only temporarily.

According to Thomas, expanding birthright citizenship beyond its original purpose weakens the meaning and value of American citizenship. He believes citizenship should reflect a stronger legal connection and allegiance to the United States rather than being based solely on birthplace.

The Supreme Court’s majority, however, rejected that interpretation. The justices ruled that the Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment and more than a century of legal precedent, guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The differing opinions reflect a broader debate over how the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted—whether its meaning should be guided primarily by its historical context and original intent or by longstanding constitutional precedent established by the Supreme Court.