Petitioner
Afroyim
Respondent
Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State
Petitioner's Claim
Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C. sec. 801 (1946), which provided that American citizens automatically lost their citizenship if they voted in a foreign election, was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Edward J. Ennis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Charles Gordon
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 May 1967
Decision
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from adopting any laws divesting American citizens of their citizenship.
Significance
The ruling overturned the 1958 decision in Perez v. Brownell, which found that Congress had the authority to provide for involuntary expatriationof a citizen who voted in a foreign election. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that once citizenship is granted, it cannot be "shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government." The Court also said that the language of the Constitution and the legislative historyof earlier citizenship laws strongly indicated that Congress never had the power to revoke citizenship.
Afroyim, born in Poland, was naturalized as an American citizen in 1926. He moved to Israel in 1950 and voted in an Israeli election in 1951, but he neverrenounced his American citizenship. In 1960, the U.S. State Department refused to renew his passport, ruling that he had lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election. He sued the secretary of state, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional. Applying Perez v. Brownell,the district court and court of appeals both rejected his argument, and he asked the Supreme Court for review.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . " The Court said, "The Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it." Although the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily intended to protect the citizenship rights givento blacks in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Court concluded that it clearly applied to all citizens, regardless of how their citizenship was obtained.As the opinion said, "Though the framers of the Amendment were not particularly concerned with the problem of expatriation, it seems undeniable from thelanguage they used that they wanted to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy."
The Court noted that the Perez case "ha[d] been a source of controversy and confusion," and that the Court had "consistently invalidated" other statutes allowing involuntary removal of citizenship. It found that the dissentin Perez correctly concluded that the government cannot take away citizenship for voting in a foreign election. "To uphold Congress' power to takeaway a man's citizenship because he voted in a foreign election in violationof sec. 401(e) would be equivalent to holding that Congress has the power to`abridge,' `affect,' `restrict the effect of,' and `take away' citizenship" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court said.
The Court also noted that even without the Fourteenth Amendment the Constitution gives Congress no express powers to take away citizenship. It commented that "[i]n our country the people are sovereign" and concluded that congressional power over issues of citizenship is correspondingly limited. Looking at legislative history of early congressional wrangles with expatriation issues,the Court concluded that most early efforts to allow cancellation of citizenship were stopped because the members of Congress felt that they had no authority to take away citizenship.
The case was decided by a 5-4 vote, and a strong dissent written by Justice Harlan argued that the Perez case should have been upheld. Harlan argued that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simply declared theexisting law, and made it clear that rights of the former slaves could not be stripped from them. The dissent concluded that "nothing in the history, purposes, or language of the clause suggests that it forbids Congress in all circumstances to withdraw the citizenship of an unwilling citizen."
Related Cases
Afroyim
Respondent
Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State
Petitioner's Claim
Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C. sec. 801 (1946), which provided that American citizens automatically lost their citizenship if they voted in a foreign election, was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Edward J. Ennis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Charles Gordon
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 May 1967
Decision
Held that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from adopting any laws divesting American citizens of their citizenship.
Significance
The ruling overturned the 1958 decision in Perez v. Brownell, which found that Congress had the authority to provide for involuntary expatriationof a citizen who voted in a foreign election. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that once citizenship is granted, it cannot be "shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government." The Court also said that the language of the Constitution and the legislative historyof earlier citizenship laws strongly indicated that Congress never had the power to revoke citizenship.
Afroyim, born in Poland, was naturalized as an American citizen in 1926. He moved to Israel in 1950 and voted in an Israeli election in 1951, but he neverrenounced his American citizenship. In 1960, the U.S. State Department refused to renew his passport, ruling that he had lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election. He sued the secretary of state, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional. Applying Perez v. Brownell,the district court and court of appeals both rejected his argument, and he asked the Supreme Court for review.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . " The Court said, "The Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it." Although the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily intended to protect the citizenship rights givento blacks in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Court concluded that it clearly applied to all citizens, regardless of how their citizenship was obtained.As the opinion said, "Though the framers of the Amendment were not particularly concerned with the problem of expatriation, it seems undeniable from thelanguage they used that they wanted to put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy."
The Court noted that the Perez case "ha[d] been a source of controversy and confusion," and that the Court had "consistently invalidated" other statutes allowing involuntary removal of citizenship. It found that the dissentin Perez correctly concluded that the government cannot take away citizenship for voting in a foreign election. "To uphold Congress' power to takeaway a man's citizenship because he voted in a foreign election in violationof sec. 401(e) would be equivalent to holding that Congress has the power to`abridge,' `affect,' `restrict the effect of,' and `take away' citizenship" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court said.
The Court also noted that even without the Fourteenth Amendment the Constitution gives Congress no express powers to take away citizenship. It commented that "[i]n our country the people are sovereign" and concluded that congressional power over issues of citizenship is correspondingly limited. Looking at legislative history of early congressional wrangles with expatriation issues,the Court concluded that most early efforts to allow cancellation of citizenship were stopped because the members of Congress felt that they had no authority to take away citizenship.
The case was decided by a 5-4 vote, and a strong dissent written by Justice Harlan argued that the Perez case should have been upheld. Harlan argued that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simply declared theexisting law, and made it clear that rights of the former slaves could not be stripped from them. The dissent concluded that "nothing in the history, purposes, or language of the clause suggests that it forbids Congress in all circumstances to withdraw the citizenship of an unwilling citizen."
Related Cases
- Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958).
- Bellei v. Rusk, 296 F.Supp 1247 (DCDC 1969).
- Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Miller, John J. "Loyalty Duel: Will the Rise of Dual Citizenship Create aWorld Without Patriotism?" National Review, May 18, 1998, p. 32.
User Comments Add a comment…