First of all this particular ruling has nothing to do with merits of the case. It's very unlikely they will rule in favor of EO in the end, which is while possi

First of all this particular ruling has nothing to do with merits of the case. It's very unlikely they will rule in favor of EO in the end, which is while possible (with this court everything is possible) still is highly unlikely. > This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute Here we're talking about constitution amendment. While the court does reinterpret constitution from time to time it's not something they do very frequently. Especially if you talk about more than a century precedent. Especially if the original meaning was quite straightforward: obviously a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, I haven't seen illegals running around killing people and police choosing to ignore them because, hm, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction.