The traditional Supreme Court press corps is used to framing cases as “here are two possible answers to a hard, novel legal question.” Not a ton of room in that framework for “this case is just thirsty law professors recycling dogshit arguments because they want the racist president’s attention”
It’s genuinely a challenge for legal journalists to cover the birthright citizenship case, because one side’s argument is “the Fourteenth’s Amendment intent and text and a century of uninterrupted Supreme Court precedent all support birthright citizenship,” and the other side’s argument is “nuh-UH”