Petitioner
Clemente Martinez Perez
Respondent
Herbert Brownell, Jr.
Petitioner's Claim
That Congress exceeded its authority in enacting certain sections of the Nationality Act of 1940, which were used to deny petitioner his U.S. citizenship.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Charles A. Horsky
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Oscar H. Davis; J. Lee Rankin, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II,
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 March 1958
Decision
Petitioner's claim denied.
Significance
Citing Congress's implied power to direct foreign affairs, the Court said thelegislature could expatriate U.S. citizens who voted in another country's elections. Some voluntary actions that Congress deemed harmful to the country were sufficient grounds for revoking U.S. citizenship.
Until 1868, the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly spell out who was an American citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified that year, granted U.S. citizenship and its benefits to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, also gave Congress the power to regulate the naturalization process, but it did not mention how--or if--Congress could take away the right of citizenship. Congress, however, did recognize that Americans could voluntarily renounce their citizenship, and theSupreme Court found some instances in which certain acts--such as marrying aforeigner and moving to the spouse's homeland--amounted to a voluntary expatriation. But, was voting in a foreign election one of those voluntary acts? That question was at the crux of Perez v. Brownell.
Clemente Perez was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1909, making him an American citizen. When Perez was 10 or 11, his parents moved to Mexico; only some yearslater did they tell him he was an American citizen. Perez lived in Mexico until 1943, when he reentered the United States as an alien worker. Perez did not want to admit he was a U.S. citizen; since World War II was underway, he would have had to register for the draft. As an American, Perez should have returned to register when the war broke out, a provision of the Nationality Actof 1940. Not registering was punishable by loss of citizenship. Instead, Perez shuttled between America and Mexico through 1944, always claiming to be a native-born Mexican.
After the war, Perez tried to enter El Paso as an American citizen. During several immigration hearings, Perez admitted that he had deliberately avoided military service during World War II. He also revealed he had voted in Mexicanelections. Under the Nationality Act, this was also grounds for losing citizenship. The government ruled Perez had expatriated himself and ordered him out of the country.
Perez made one more try to reclaim his citizenship. In 1952 he entered America as an immigrant worker. When immigration officials picked him up the next year, his visa was no longer valid. To avoid deportation, Perez again assertedhis American citizenship and again he was rebuked. Perez then took the matter to court, but both the U.S. District Court and Ninth Court of Appeals denied Perez's suit to restore his nationality. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreedto hear the case to address its constitutional issues.
Congress Can Seek to Limit "Embarrassing" Actions
The Court voted 5-4 to deny Perez's claim. According to Justice Frankfurter'sdecision, the first key point was Congress's authority to pass the Nationality Act. Frankfurter said the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate foreign affairs, but through its legislative duties Congress can "deal affirmatively with foreign nations" or "reduce to a minimumthe frictions that are unavoidable in a world of sovereigns . . . " Passingthe Nationality Act was a valid use of congressional power.
Next, Frankfurter examined whether preventing Americans from voting in foreign elections was a legitimate use of that power. (In its decision, the Court only focused on Perez's voting in Mexico, not his attempt to avoid military service). It was, since:
Lastly, the Court found that the punishment of expatriation fit the act committed, even if by voting in a foreign land a citizen did not intend to give uphis citizenship. "The termination of citizenship terminates the problem."
Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee in Jeopardy
In a dissent joined by Justices William Douglas and Hugo Black, Chief JusticeEarl Warren stressed that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country. That right was the basis of all others and could not be taken away. While acknowledging a person's right to voluntarily renounce his citizenship, Warren did not consider voting in a foreign country necessarily harmful. Elections occur for many reasons, and Congress was too broadly insistent that by voting in any foreign election, Americanswere in effect renouncing their citizenship.
Historically, until 1928, America had allowed aliens to vote in presidentialelections. Before that, 22 states had given aliens the right to vote. By allowing this, Warren argued, the nation did not assume aliens had given up allegiance to their homelands. "How then can we attach such significance to any vote of a United States citizen in a foreign election?"
Almost a decade later, the minority's concerns about unfairly denying citizenship arose again. Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) involved a naturalized citizen who voted in a foreign election. This time, the Court overturned its rulingin Perez, asserting Congress could not under any circumstance take away citizenship without a person's assent. But only four years later, in Rogers v. Bellei, the Court made a distinction between a person born or naturalized in the United States versus a citizen born or naturalized abroad. Inthis instance, the Court upheld a law that required people born outside thecountry had to have at least one U.S. parent living in the United States forfive consecutive years, or lose their citizenship. The defendant, like Clemente Perez, was stripped of his nationality.
Related Cases
Clemente Martinez Perez
Respondent
Herbert Brownell, Jr.
Petitioner's Claim
That Congress exceeded its authority in enacting certain sections of the Nationality Act of 1940, which were used to deny petitioner his U.S. citizenship.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Charles A. Horsky
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Oscar H. Davis; J. Lee Rankin, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II,
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 March 1958
Decision
Petitioner's claim denied.
Significance
Citing Congress's implied power to direct foreign affairs, the Court said thelegislature could expatriate U.S. citizens who voted in another country's elections. Some voluntary actions that Congress deemed harmful to the country were sufficient grounds for revoking U.S. citizenship.
Until 1868, the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly spell out who was an American citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified that year, granted U.S. citizenship and its benefits to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, also gave Congress the power to regulate the naturalization process, but it did not mention how--or if--Congress could take away the right of citizenship. Congress, however, did recognize that Americans could voluntarily renounce their citizenship, and theSupreme Court found some instances in which certain acts--such as marrying aforeigner and moving to the spouse's homeland--amounted to a voluntary expatriation. But, was voting in a foreign election one of those voluntary acts? That question was at the crux of Perez v. Brownell.
Clemente Perez was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1909, making him an American citizen. When Perez was 10 or 11, his parents moved to Mexico; only some yearslater did they tell him he was an American citizen. Perez lived in Mexico until 1943, when he reentered the United States as an alien worker. Perez did not want to admit he was a U.S. citizen; since World War II was underway, he would have had to register for the draft. As an American, Perez should have returned to register when the war broke out, a provision of the Nationality Actof 1940. Not registering was punishable by loss of citizenship. Instead, Perez shuttled between America and Mexico through 1944, always claiming to be a native-born Mexican.
After the war, Perez tried to enter El Paso as an American citizen. During several immigration hearings, Perez admitted that he had deliberately avoided military service during World War II. He also revealed he had voted in Mexicanelections. Under the Nationality Act, this was also grounds for losing citizenship. The government ruled Perez had expatriated himself and ordered him out of the country.
Perez made one more try to reclaim his citizenship. In 1952 he entered America as an immigrant worker. When immigration officials picked him up the next year, his visa was no longer valid. To avoid deportation, Perez again assertedhis American citizenship and again he was rebuked. Perez then took the matter to court, but both the U.S. District Court and Ninth Court of Appeals denied Perez's suit to restore his nationality. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreedto hear the case to address its constitutional issues.
Congress Can Seek to Limit "Embarrassing" Actions
The Court voted 5-4 to deny Perez's claim. According to Justice Frankfurter'sdecision, the first key point was Congress's authority to pass the Nationality Act. Frankfurter said the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate foreign affairs, but through its legislative duties Congress can "deal affirmatively with foreign nations" or "reduce to a minimumthe frictions that are unavoidable in a world of sovereigns . . . " Passingthe Nationality Act was a valid use of congressional power.
Next, Frankfurter examined whether preventing Americans from voting in foreign elections was a legitimate use of that power. (In its decision, the Court only focused on Perez's voting in Mexico, not his attempt to avoid military service). It was, since:
. . . the activities of the citizens of one nation when in another country can easily cause serious embarrassments to the government of their own country as well as to their fellow citizens. We cannot deny to Congress the reasonable belief that these difficulties might well become acute, to the point of jeopardizing the successful conduct of international relations, when the citizen of one country chooses to participate inthe political or governmental affairs of another country. The citizen may byhis action unwittingly promote or encourage a course of conduct contrary to the interests of his own government.
Lastly, the Court found that the punishment of expatriation fit the act committed, even if by voting in a foreign land a citizen did not intend to give uphis citizenship. "The termination of citizenship terminates the problem."
Fourteenth Amendment Guarantee in Jeopardy
In a dissent joined by Justices William Douglas and Hugo Black, Chief JusticeEarl Warren stressed that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country. That right was the basis of all others and could not be taken away. While acknowledging a person's right to voluntarily renounce his citizenship, Warren did not consider voting in a foreign country necessarily harmful. Elections occur for many reasons, and Congress was too broadly insistent that by voting in any foreign election, Americanswere in effect renouncing their citizenship.
Historically, until 1928, America had allowed aliens to vote in presidentialelections. Before that, 22 states had given aliens the right to vote. By allowing this, Warren argued, the nation did not assume aliens had given up allegiance to their homelands. "How then can we attach such significance to any vote of a United States citizen in a foreign election?"
Almost a decade later, the minority's concerns about unfairly denying citizenship arose again. Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) involved a naturalized citizen who voted in a foreign election. This time, the Court overturned its rulingin Perez, asserting Congress could not under any circumstance take away citizenship without a person's assent. But only four years later, in Rogers v. Bellei, the Court made a distinction between a person born or naturalized in the United States versus a citizen born or naturalized abroad. Inthis instance, the Court upheld a law that required people born outside thecountry had to have at least one U.S. parent living in the United States forfive consecutive years, or lose their citizenship. The defendant, like Clemente Perez, was stripped of his nationality.
Related Cases
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
- Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911).
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
User Comments Add a comment…