Maslenjak v. United States
137 S. Ct. 1918, 198 L. Ed. 2d 460 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a conviction for procuring naturalization contrary to law under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) based on a false statement, the government must prove the defendant's illegal act had a causal influence on the acquisition of citizenship. The false statement must be about facts that would have been material to the naturalization decision, either by being independently disqualifying or by predictably leading to the discovery of disqualifying facts.
Facts:
- In 1998, Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb from Bosnia, sought refugee status in the United States.
- During an interview with an immigration official, Maslenjak stated under oath that her husband, Ratko Maslenjak, had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb Army to avoid persecution.
- Based on her claims, U.S. officials granted the Maslenjak family refugee status, and they immigrated in 2000.
- In 2006, Maslenjak applied for U.S. naturalization.
- On her application, Maslenjak answered 'no' to questions asking if she had ever given false information to a government official or lied to gain entry to the U.S., swearing her answers were true.
- Maslenjak became a naturalized U.S. citizen in August 2007.
- It was later discovered that Ratko Maslenjak had not evaded service but had served as an officer in a Bosnian Serb Army brigade involved in the Srebrenica massacre.
- During her husband's subsequent deportation proceedings, Maslenjak admitted she had always known her husband served in the army during the war, confirming her earlier statements were false.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Divna Maslenjak in U.S. District Court with unlawfully procuring her naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a).
- At trial, the district court instructed the jury that it could convict if it found Maslenjak made a false statement, even if the statement was not material and did not influence the decision to grant her naturalization.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the district court revoked Maslenjak's citizenship.
- Maslenjak, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the government did not need to prove the false statements played any role in her obtaining citizenship.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
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 a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) for procuring naturalization 'contrary to law' require the government to prove that the defendant's illegal act played a role in obtaining citizenship?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes. To convict a defendant for unlawfully procuring naturalization under § 1425(a), the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship. The statutory language 'procure[s], contrary to law, naturalization' implies a means-end, causal relationship; an illegal act must have contributed to the obtaining of citizenship. The government's interpretation, which would criminalize any illegal act committed 'in the course of' naturalization, regardless of its effect, leads to absurd consequences and creates a mismatch between the standards for granting and revoking citizenship. Under this standard, a conviction requires showing the defendant lied about facts that would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to the discovery of other disqualifying facts.
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment - Justice Gorsuch
Yes. The plain text and structure of the statute require the government to prove causation as an element of the conviction. While I agree with the majority's conclusion that the statute has a causation requirement and that the conviction must be reversed, I would not go further to 'operationalize' that requirement with a detailed multi-part test and affirmative defense. Those specific contours were not fully briefed by the parties, and the lower courts should have the first opportunity to develop the standard on remand through the adversarial process.
Concurring in the judgment - Justice Alito
No. The statute does not require proof that a false statement actually had an effect on the naturalization decision, but instead imposes a materiality requirement. The phrase 'procure... contrary to law' means that the illegal false statement must have a 'natural tendency to influence' the outcome, which is the traditional test for materiality. A defendant violates the statute by procuring naturalization through a material false statement, regardless of whether they would have obtained citizenship even if they had told the truth. While the jury instructions were erroneous, the majority's causation test goes beyond what the statutory text requires.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the government's burden of proof in criminal denaturalization cases under § 1425(a). By rejecting a standard where any lie, however trivial, could lead to loss of citizenship, the Court provides greater security to naturalized citizens. The ruling establishes a causation requirement, forcing prosecutors to demonstrate that a false statement was material to the naturalization decision. This aligns the criminal standard more closely with existing civil denaturalization law and curtails prosecutorial discretion to target citizens for minor, inconsequential falsehoods made years earlier.
Unlock the full brief for Maslenjak v. United States