The current court majority has NO respect for precedent unless it is a "super precedent" and I haven't seen them identify one example of such a "super precedent." Roe v Wade, not being "super" , was overturned.
The current court majority loves to use newly invented doctrines to overturn previous rulings and precedent such as historicism and orginalism and major questions doctrine.
I am going to make a prediction for you on a topic discussed in the show today: Birthright Citizenship.
Brief portion of the 14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.[1]
As you know, in 1857, Justice Taney and SCOTUS when ruling against Dredd Scott [2] not only said he could not be a citizen but "that no black person, free or enslaved, could ever be a US citizen." The 14th Amendment was written directly to refute that and ensure that former slaves were consididered citizens.
Then, in 1898, the court ruled in US v Wong Kim Ark that Wong was indeed a citizen having been born on US soil to Chinese immigrants. However, during that case a key element was the phrase from the 14th amendment "ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" as related to relations with China at the time, specifically the emperor of China in that the child in question was “not subject to any foreign power.” The court further noted that if they denied citizenship to Wong, they would have to deny it to children born in the USA to Irish, German, Italian, and other white immigrants. This at a time when the USA was experiencing a surge in immigration from countries like Ireland, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
The current court majority has been quite obviously cherrypicking history to use their "historical" background as substance for reversals of precedence or outright rulings for example requiring that modern gun laws be consistent with the history of firearm regulation in the United State. I predict this same historical approach will be used in lawsuits which will reach SCOTUS on birthright citizenship.
The argument will be that the 14th amendment was narrowly written as a focus on newly freed black slaves and their children and descendents but was never intended to cover the births of immigrants to the USA legal or otherwise in perpetuity. When presented with the Wong case, the argument will be glossed over using the "subject to any foreign power” in some manner was well as dismissing the ruling as flawed reasoning at the time by the court and reversing it because it does not rise to a super-precedent level.
[1]
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
[2]
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford
[3]
