Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rebukes Justice Clarence Thomas over his dissent from the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Writing a 20-page concurring opinion, Jackson argues that Thomas advances a “narrow vision” of the 14th Amendment and departs from the reasoning of the six-justice majority. Multiple outlets report that Jackson frames Thomas’s position as aligning with the logic associated with the Dred Scott decision, which historically rejected birthright citizenship for certain groups. Fox reports that Jackson makes a direct comparison to Dred Scott, while The Hill characterizes her critique as targeting Thomas’s approach to the Constitution despite his stated belief in a “colorblind” reading. Breitbart similarly describes Jackson’s argument as seeking to return to a “core tenet” of Dred Scott, while Slate adds context about the broader dispute over historical interpretation and constitutional method. Overall, the articles describe an internal disagreement on how the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee should be understood, with Jackson using her concurrence to respond to Thomas’s dissent rather than the court’s holding itself.