Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday striking down President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, arguing in a lengthy dissent that the ruling diminishes the value of American citizenship and departs from the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States, rejecting Trump's executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the country to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. 

The ruling reaffirmed the court’s longstanding interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and its 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, subject to limited exceptions.

Thomas, the court's longest-serving justice, authored a 91-page dissent arguing the majority misread both the Constitution and the nation's history.

"I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time," Thomas wrote. "The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' Today's opinion devalues that citizenship."

Thomas did not read his dissent from the bench.

His opinion focused on the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause and the concept of domicile, contending that the Reconstruction-era Congress never intended for the amendment to confer citizenship automatically on children born to foreign nationals who were only temporarily present in the United States.

"The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States," Thomas wrote. 

"Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here," he added.

Thomas also rejected the majority's reliance on English common law principles and argued that Wong Kim Ark should not control cases involving children born to parents who are in the country temporarily or unlawfully.

"The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."

Thomas concluded that much of Trump's executive order, signed on his first day back in office, "is consistent with the original public meaning" of the Citizenship Clause and should have been upheld.

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected that interpretation, concluding that the 14th Amendment's text and more than a century of precedent require recognizing citizenship for children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The court said children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore citizens at birth under the Constitution.

The decision marked a significant legal defeat for Trump, who has argued that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes children whose parents lack permanent legal status. His administration maintained that the executive order reflected the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, while opponents argued that only a constitutional amendment or a reversal of longstanding Supreme Court precedent could alter birthright citizenship.

Thomas was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in dissent from the court's decision.