I cried a little at the concluding sentences of the Supreme Court’s holding on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. It was not the first time (and I deeply hope it will not be the last) I was brought to tears by a jurist’s eloquent legal writing in affirmation of the principles for which it seemed, until recent years, most Americans believed the nation strives. But there was a uniqueness to the quiet singular roll of water out of each eye. It was not entirely happy. I was annoyed by the size of my relief, bothered by how badly it seemed the country needed for that decision to be what it was.

Many believe it should have been a non-starter that the president’s executive order denying birthright citizenship violated the Fourteenth Amendment. But only those living under a rock when the Court granted wide-ranging presidential immunity could truly have felt secure that a majority of justices would follow the Constitution as written on the issue of citizenship. As I absorbed the predictable dissent analysis that the Citizenship Clause was meant for former slaves and those who have no allegiance to another land, I became increasingly conscious of just how easily this decision could have gone the other way.

The most fantastic and frightening thing about the law, about a litigator making a case and a judge deciding it, is how easy it can be to find written support for just about any proposition. After all, we have a Court that says corporations are persons and money is speech. It has permitted the states to turn women of childbearing years into citizens with less autonomy over their own bodies than their male counterparts. They found the arguments to justify it all.

So, this decision could easily have been a morale killer going into the nation’s big birthday. Instead, we can be happy the justices handed down something to counterbalance the additional power given to money in politics, by striking down a campaign finance law, and to the office of a presidency that is already imperial – currently occupied by a man who is cryptocurrency rich.

How about reaffirmation of the Emoluments Clause next? Is anyone bringing that case? The nation could use that, too.