Much of the debate over so-called “birthright citizenship” is over interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution. Most of the people currently in power claim that the text means every baby born to every foreign national on American soil is an automatic US citizen. Others—like myself—believe that this interpretation is dubious and has always been a matter of debate.

In commentary on this topic, however, one often encounters assertions to the effect that rulings by the US Supreme Court provide the “definitive” or “final” interpretation. Or, put another way, there is an idea that once SCOTUS makes a ruling on something, then the ruling is “settled law.” Even worse, some people think that once the Supreme Court has ruled on something, there is no point discussing it or challenging the currently popular interpretation of the law.

In truth, there is no such thing as settled law and the US Supreme court’s interpretations are hardly definitive. In politics nothing is ever settled or permanent. No cause is ever won or lost permanently. Beyond the short term, everything is up for grabs.

This is true in the courts as everywhere else. At any given time, the court’s rulings reflect modern ideologies and political realities. As these change, so do the court’s rulings. Indeed, court’s often “discover” that the rulings of past courts were somehow completely wrong, and the court then moves in a nearly opposite direction. The back-and-forth on Roe v. Wade is just one example.