Supreme Court receipt: "They had no other homeland"

SUMMARYSupreme Court receipt: "They had no other homeland" (Nov 4, 2026). From Tito's TikTok draft (WW9 Clothing, @tezww9)

RECORDTrump v. Barbara, No. 25-356 (U.S. June 30, 2026). The majority (Roberts) held that birth in the US, together with being subject to US sovereign authority, is enough for citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch on the page Tito shows. Thomas, dissenting, p. 1: "Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority." He adds that they "fought and bled in the same battles," quoting Frederick Douglass. The same dissent, p. 25: "Like temporary visitors, tribal Indians were not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," relying on Elk v. Wilkins (1884).
CONTEXT: this is a dissent, not the Court's holding; Thomas uses the line to argue for a narrower reading of birthright citizenship for children of temporary visitors and unlawfully present parents. Contested policy; cite it neutrally

PATTERNa sitting justice, in a 2026 opinion, writes that so-called Black Americans "had no other homeland" and owed no allegiance to any foreign power. That is a court record of the "we are not African, we are American" position, from a source with no stake in WW9

LENS (WW9)"U can't assume my nationality, I'm not African."

OPENthe dissent separates "Blacks" from "tribal Indians." Under the freedmen-rolls thread (Tito's family's story), test where the lines between those categories were drawn on paper, and by whom.
Source: dissent PDF hosted at indianz.com (25-356_thomas.pdf); SCOTUSblog breakdown (June 2026).