We know what the "intent" of the 14th was, its just a matter of ........can the liberal lawyers convince the Justices otherwise.

"The Supreme Court has historically interpreted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of birthright citizenship to mean that individuals born in the United States are automatically citizens, provided they are not born to foreign diplomats or other individuals who are not subject to U.S. laws. This interpretation was solidified in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, as his parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government.

This interpretation aligns with the common law principle of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth), which was intended to be enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure broad and inclusive citizenship rights."

"intended to be enshrined" is not the same as "enshrined".

I "intended" to be a million dollar lottery winner; but, alas...

Native Americans born in the US were not clearly considered citizens based on the 14th ammendment because they were also subject to their tribal nation. Their US citizenship was clarified and guaranteed via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

Great point

When there's big cases coming out I watch the live chat on https://www.scotusblog.com/
They have reporters in the room typing info about the rulings as they come out. From their reporters, I usually have good understanding of the ruling before the main media gets around to putting up a breaking news banner on their site.

Members of the public can also post comments (there's a lot of moderation, they only let some comments from the public through). When the injuction ruling came out last week, one of the public comments was expressing surprise the the supreme court would strike down an injection on an executive order that is so clearly unconstitional. One of scotusblog's moderators repsonded to the comment saying he would not assume the executive order is unconstitutional, and that it would be back before the court.

I don't know what way the court will rule on it. But I do believe there's a non-zero change that it stands. The only thing that would surprise is a 9-0 ruling.

The supreme court did not strike down the injunctions in total. The injunctions only apply to those courts' districts.

"Trump's policy remains blocked in the following states:

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
In the remaining states, Trump's order can go into effect 30 days after Friday's ruling, pending any further legal action. That order limits birthright citizenship to those who are U.S. citizens or in the country with legal permanent residency, excluding those on visitor and temporary visas, as well as undocumented immigrants."

Newsweek?