Sorry, but just so I understand - what exactly was the "misinformation"? I'm not clear on what was either objectionable or incorrectly claimed to be untrue.

For anyone salty about the fact that a government owns your passports, I don't have time to dig out a hundred statutes, but can you can refer to

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.7 and

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passports-introducing-her-majestys-passport-office

For the US and UK.

Also, "Trustafarian" isn't a race, it's slang for rich kids that pretend to be poor and live a hedonistic lifestyle.

Not normalizing - I'm talking about only that a national government owns a passport.

....looool! I find it funny that you would believe thatt the usa government would follow any laws at all loool.

Like come on

The Supreme Court can make up whatever bullshit they want. They just gutted the Voting Rights Act, why not this too?

I did not get through the entire opinion, but don't think it says what you think it says.

The question presented is whether the President, acting through the Secretary of State, has authority to revoke a passport on the ground that the holder's activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.

Sure, which is entirely subjective. NSPM-7 clearly opens the door to anything and everything being an option.

Nazi brain rot

Freedom of travel is a 5th Amendment right inside the US only - you don't have a right to move to France or Australia.