Afroyim v. Rusk
387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause bars Congress from involuntarily revoking a U.S. citizen's citizenship; citizenship can only be lost through voluntary renunciation.
Facts:
- Bezalel Afroyim, born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to the United States in 1912.
- In 1926, Afroyim became a naturalized United States citizen.
- Afroyim moved to Israel in 1950.
- In 1951, he voluntarily voted in an election for the Knesset, the Israeli legislative body.
- In 1960, Afroyim applied for a renewal of his United States passport.
- The Department of State refused to renew his passport, stating he had lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election, per the Nationality Act of 1940.
Procedural Posture:
- Afroyim filed a declaratory judgment action in a federal district court, seeking to have his citizenship recognized.
- The U.S. District Court, relying on the precedent set in Perez v. Brownell, held that Afroyim had lost his citizenship.
- Afroyim, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as appellee, affirmed the district court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider its ruling in Perez v. Brownell.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which strips U.S. citizenship from a citizen who votes in a foreign political election, violate the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes, § 401(e) violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress lacks the power to strip an American of citizenship without their voluntary assent. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional rule that citizenship, once acquired, is permanent unless the individual voluntarily relinquishes it. The Court overruled its prior decision in Perez v. Brownell, rejecting the idea that Congress's implied power to regulate foreign affairs could justify involuntary expatriation. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment indicates its drafters intended to place citizenship beyond the reach of subsequent Congresses, making it a secure and permanent status that the government cannot destroy.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No, § 401(e) does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning in Perez v. Brownell was correct; Congress has the authority, derived from its power to regulate foreign affairs, to expatriate a citizen for acts that may be prejudicial to U.S. foreign relations, such as voting in a foreign election. The majority misinterprets the historical evidence and the purpose of the Citizenship Clause. The Clause's primary purpose was to define who is a citizen (overturning Dred Scott), not to limit Congress's power to prescribe how citizenship may be lost. Historical examples, such as the Enrollment Act of 1865 which expatriated military deserters, show that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment believed Congress possessed the power of involuntary expatriation.
Analysis:
This decision represents a fundamental shift in American citizenship law by establishing citizenship as a constitutional right rather than a privilege that Congress can revoke. By overruling Perez v. Brownell, the Court set a high constitutional bar against involuntary expatriation, requiring the government to prove a citizen's specific intent to renounce their citizenship. This holding curtails congressional power, particularly under its foreign affairs authority, and provides U.S. citizens with significantly greater security in their status. Future expatriation cases would have to focus on the subjective intent of the individual rather than merely the commission of a statutorily proscribed act.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"