During oral arguments, Jackson offered a hypothetical: imagine a U.S. citizen traveling in Japan. If that person commits a crime there—say, stealing a wallet—Japanese authorities have the power to arrest and prosecute them. In that sense, she suggested, “allegiance” could be understood as being subject to a country’s legal authority. She extended the example further, noting that the same traveler could also rely on Japanese law enforcement if they were the victim of a crime.
From there, Jackson posed a broader question. Even as a temporary visitor, she said, a person might be seen as owing a kind of local allegiance simply by being present and subject to the laws of that place.
Read Full Article: https://ijr.com/scotus-judges-argument-leaves-public-speechless/
