Supreme Court Justice’s Definition of Loyalty Raises Eyebrows

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently provided a rather unusual interpretation of “loyalty.” During a discussion, she stated, “I was thinking, you know… I’m an American citizen visiting Japan, and what that means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. That’s loyalty. So can they control you as a matter of law?” This exchange occurred with American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecilia Wang.

The Supreme Court was deliberating on the case Trump v. Barbara, which questions the constitutionality of a presidential order from Donald Trump aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.

Jackson elaborated, mentioning, “If my wallet is stolen, I can rely on them to prosecute the person who stole it based on Japanese law.”

Her comments have sparked various reactions, with some finding it unreasonable. For instance, one comment noted, “If you steal someone’s wallet in Japan, you have ‘loyalty’ to that country.” This perspective has left many puzzled.

“So this relationship is based on the fact that even though I’m a temporary tourist on vacation in Japan, I still owe local allegiances in that sense. Is that the right way of thinking?” Jackson questioned further.

This interpretation of loyalty appears quite complex. Typically, loyalty is understood as a commitment or faithfulness from an individual. A lingering question arises: Are foreign spies seen as loyal to the U.S. simply because they face prosecution here?

If that’s the case, does it imply that temporary residents and undocumented immigrants possess loyalty just by being within the U.S.?

Rephrasing Jackson’s argument leads to a perplexing conclusion: If words lack meaning, then how can we comprehend the existence of a nation at all?