My reaction is based on the fact that the more you actually study the question, the more incorrect the conventional wisdom seemed to be. And I naively assumed that ACB was going to give the significant contrary authority at least some serious consideration. Going into law school, I just assumed ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens was going to require a constitutional amendment. Then I actually read Wong Kim Ark, and found that the holding was too narrow to be binding on the questions of illegal immigrants, as the question at bar concerned only children born to parents with "permanent domicil and residence." Then I read literally every single word of the Congressional Debates over the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. It became clear to me that "subject to the jurisdiction," while seemingly so simple in modern parlance, was loaded to the gills with a tremendous amount of nuance, political and legal philosophy—almost all of which cut against birthright for illegal immigrants. Then I studied the jurisprudential, legislative, and executive record after the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, and found that there was a decades-long consensus that children of temporary visitors, and even many classes of foreigners who were not here permanently were not covered by the 14th Amendment... and that it wasn't until the Roosevelt administration that the Executive Branch unilaterally changed the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to include illegal immigrants by fiat. Thereafter, I became somewhat disheartened in my discussions and debates on the topic, because I found that the "conventional wisdom" on the topic was so heavily ingrained in the minds of so many. It was like the teachings of third grade civics teachers were comparable to a religious belief. People who are open to new ideas and even thought birthright for illegal immigrants was a bad idea were aghast that I could suggest the 14th Amendment didn't actually confer birthright onto illegal immigrants. I assumed the case would turn out this way, but held onto some hope that if any group of people would be capable of truly and substantively engaging with the historical and legal record and capable of shaking their deeply-held romantic notions of the constitution in favor of reasoned legal analysis, it would be the Supreme Court. After oral arguments, I was asked by a lawyer friend what I thought the biggest legal obstacle, the weakest legal argument in favor of the EO was. My answer was that the biggest obstacle wasn't legal in nature, it was swimming upstream of conventional wisdom that the Boomers and their children had been relentlessly told was a fundamental part of our Constitution. After reading the majority opinion, all 27 pages of it, I was completely shocked by its pathetic attempt to deal with the voluminous contrary authority. Rather than do a serious historical and legal analysis of the contrary authority and the authority on its side, the majority simply hung its hat on dicta from Wong Kim Ark, and claimed that the authors of the Amendment and the subsequent Congresses, Courts, and Executives in the decades that followed were engaged in a revisionist rebellion against the 14th Amendment, rather than reflecting the public consensus regarding its meaning held by the people who wrote, passed, and lived under it and subsequent generations. The majority, rather than seriously contending with the contrary authority and the dissent, spent the last 40% of their decision mischaracterizing and dismissing the dissent and all the contrary authority. I think Roberts and ACB, but especially ACB, knew that they had to simply dismiss and mischaracterize the contrary authority, because if they actually seriously considered it, they would have to rule the other way, or at least avoid the sweeping constitutional conclusion they authored. I was less upset about the result until I actually sat down and read all the opinions. The more I read them, the more upset I am with ACB in particular, because I expected better from her.