The Fourteenth Amendment stresses that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen and cannot be deprived of their rights. Which detail from the passage supports the court's reason for not using previous rulings on effects of the Fourteenth Amendment to decide this case?

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution Section 1 reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The detail from the passage that supports this idea is

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Abridge means to deprive or cut off, so no state can create or follow any previous law that in any way may go against this rule.