Perez v. Brownell
356 U.S. 44, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1283, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress, under its implied power to regulate foreign affairs, may enact a statute that revokes the U.S. citizenship of a native-born citizen for voluntarily voting in a foreign political election.
Facts:
- Clemente Martinez Perez was born in Texas in 1909, making him a U.S. citizen.
- Around 1920, Perez's parents moved him to Mexico, where he resided for decades.
- During World War II, Perez was aware of his obligation as a U.S. citizen to register for the draft but failed to do so.
- Perez admitted to remaining outside of the United States from November 1944 to July 1947 for the purpose of avoiding military service.
- In 1946, while residing in Mexico, Perez voted in a political election in that country.
- On several occasions between 1943 and 1952, Perez entered the United States by identifying himself as a native-born citizen of Mexico.
- In 1947, Perez sought entry into the U.S. as a U.S. citizen, at which time he admitted to both draft evasion and voting in a Mexican election.
Procedural Posture:
- A Board of Special Inquiry ordered Perez excluded from the United States on the ground that he had expatriated himself, a decision affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- Subsequently, after being found in the U.S., Perez was ordered deported as an alien by a Special Inquiry Officer, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
- Perez filed suit in a United States District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that he was a U.S. national.
- The District Court found that Perez had voted in a foreign election and remained abroad to evade military service, concluded he had expatriated himself, and denied relief.
- Perez, as the appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the constitutional questions raised by Perez.
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 Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which strips U.S. nationality from a citizen who votes in a foreign political election, exceed the constitutional power of Congress?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. Section 401(e) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate foreign affairs. The power to regulate foreign affairs is an inherent attribute of national sovereignty, and Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to carry out this power. Congress could rationally conclude that a U.S. citizen's participation in a foreign election could cause international friction and embarrass the United States in its foreign relations. Stripping citizenship is a reasonably related means to prevent such complications, as it terminates the basis for the potential diplomatic problem. The act of voting need only be voluntary; it does not require a specific intent on the part of the citizen to renounce their nationality, as established in precedents like Mackenzie v. Hare and Savorgnan v. United States.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Warren
Yes. The statute exceeds congressional power because citizenship is a fundamental, constitutional right that the government cannot involuntarily take away. The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship, and this right is not subject to the general regulatory powers of the government. While a citizen can voluntarily renounce or abandon their citizenship through actions that unequivocally show a transfer of allegiance, the mere act of voting in a foreign election is too equivocal to constitute such an abandonment. The statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because it encompasses conduct that does not rationally demonstrate a voluntary surrender of allegiance to the United States. Citizenship is the 'right to have rights,' and the government created by the citizens lacks the power to sever that fundamental relationship.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The law is unconstitutional because the right of citizenship is granted by the Fourteenth Amendment and is beyond the legislative power of Congress to revoke. Expatriation must be a voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality; it cannot be imposed by the government as a penalty. The act of voting in a foreign election lacks a sufficient relationship to a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. Allowing Congress to strip citizenship under the guise of its foreign affairs power is a dangerous precedent that could be used to punish citizens for expressing unorthodox views on foreign policy, thereby chilling First Amendment rights. Citizenship is a constitutional grant, absolute in its terms, which no branch of government has the power to take away from a native-born citizen.
Analysis:
This decision established that Congress could involuntarily expatriate a U.S. citizen as a means of exercising its other constitutional powers, specifically the power to regulate foreign affairs. It controversially separated the act of expatriation from the citizen's intent to renounce citizenship, treating citizenship as a status that Congress could regulate to avoid diplomatic friction. This ruling significantly weakened the constitutional protection of citizenship by making it subject to forfeiture for conduct Congress deemed harmful to national interests. The holding in Perez was highly contentious and was ultimately overturned nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), which held that Congress has no power to strip a person of their U.S. citizenship absent their voluntary relinquishment of it.
