Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

17 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

“usual residence” criterion has been applied to immigrants.
See Dept. of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census,
Thirteenth  Census  of  the  United  States:  Instructions  to 
Enumerators, April 15, 1910, 21 (1910) (stating that “aliens
who have left this country” should not be counted because
“nothing definite can be known as to whether such aliens
intend to return to this country”); Bas v. Steele, 2 F. Cas. 
988, 993 (CC Pa. 1818) (concluding a foreign trader visiting
a  port  with  cargo  had  not  established  “domicil[e]”  in  the 
United States because “[g]oing to a place to obtain a cargo, 
and  coming  away,  does  not  give  a  [him]  a  domicil[e],  or 
make him an inhabitant”).  Other sources show that immi-
gration laws themselves have taken account of similar cri-
teria for other purposes.  See Department of Homeland Se-
curity v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op.,
at 34) (discussing the significance of “ ‘acquir[ing] any dom-
icil[e] or residence within the United States’ ” for Due Pro-
cess rights to attach for those not naturalized or otherwise 
officially admitted to the country (quoting Nishimura Ekiu 
v.  United  States,  142  U. S.  651,  660  (1892)));  see  also 
Kaplan, 267 U. S., at 230 (asking whether a minor was le-
gally “dwelling” in the United States for purposes of a nat-
uralization statute).  These few instances of a court asking
whether an immigrant is “domiciled” in the country or has
an “intent to return” to the United States do not show that 
immigration status is somehow a proxy for the concept of 
residency.  To the contrary, they show that these principles
can be applied to those lawfully and unlawfully present on
the same terms. 

The Government’s argument for a narrower construction
of “inhabitant” turns largely on Vattel’s founding-era trea-
tise on the law of nations, which distinguishes between the 
“inhabitants”  and  “citizens”  of  a  nation.  Brief  for  United 
States 36 (citing 1 Vattel, The Law of Nations §213 (1760)). 
Even assuming that the Government offers the best reading 
of  his  work,  and  that  this  reading  of  Vattel  informed  the