ONE IS REAFFIRMING STATE RIGHTS
ONE RULING ON PRECEDENT
The ruling concerning trans male athletes from participating in women's sports was a classic states rights ruling. It certainly was not an issue when the constitution was written and states rights is perfect for covering such matters. It is probably the best ruling that the court could have agreed upon.
The birthright citizenship ruling seems to have been based on many years of precedent even if it is a bad precedent. The 14th amendment was enacted in 1868 and was the direct result of abuses concerning freed slaves who often were denied citizenship in some states. The amendment ruled that everyone born in the U.S. was automatically a citizen. There was an ambiguous line stating, "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S" The amendment clearly disqualified children born to foreign diplomats and occupying armies.
In today's world, recognizing anyone born in the country even if here on vacation or illegally is not in the spirit of the original amendment. This amendment was written way before the era of financial benefits linked to citizenship and is not practiced by any other country in the world. We can assume that court feared the complications of any change that has been practiced for near 200 years. It could have been possible for a clarifying ruling that exempted all before the present date from losing their citizenship.
I suspect that this may not be the end of this effort to change birthright citizenship, either by amendment or another attempt with different court.