In law, attribution is everything. Briefs and rulings are built on citations to statutes, constitutional provisions, and prior cases. A claim without a source is, as SCOTUSblog puts it, akin to laying claim to something without evidence. So when a Supreme Court opinion omits a citation where one would be expected, it is worth attention.
The source examines the Court's recent birthright citizenship decision and focuses on exactly such an omission. The missing citation is not a minor technicality; it signals a potential gap in the Court's reasoning. By failing to ground a key assertion in legal authority, the decision may invite criticism that it rests on assertion rather than established doctrine.
The analysis does not speculate wildly about the Court's motives, but it underscores the practical consequence: a ruling that cannot point to its own legal foundation is harder to defend and easier to challenge. For observers of the Court, the missing citation is a clue that something in the majority's logic may be left unsupported.