Schneiderman v. United States
1943 U.S. LEXIS 1110, 63 S. Ct. 1333, 320 U.S. 118 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a denaturalization proceeding, the government carries the heavy burden of proving by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence that the citizen lacked the statutorily required attachment to Constitutional principles. Mere membership in the Communist Party, without overt acts or personal advocacy of violent overthrow of the government, is insufficient to satisfy this high evidentiary standard.
Facts:
- William Schneiderman immigrated to the United States from Russia as a child around 1907.
- In 1922, at the age of sixteen, he became a charter member of the Young Workers League, a Communist organization.
- In 1924, he filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen, and shortly thereafter joined the Workers Party, the predecessor of the Communist Party of the United States.
- During the five-year period before his naturalization, he served in non-salaried, non-executive roles such as 'educational director' and corresponding secretary for these organizations.
- On June 10, 1927, a United States District Court granted Schneiderman's petition and issued him a certificate of citizenship.
- The record indicates that prior to and after his naturalization, Schneiderman had never been arrested or connected with any overt illegal or violent action.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 30, 1939, the United States initiated a denaturalization proceeding against William Schneiderman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
- The complaint sought to cancel Schneiderman's 1927 certificate of citizenship on the ground that it was 'illegally procured' due to his lack of attachment to the Constitution.
- The district court, as the trial court, found in favor of the United States and entered a decree canceling the certificate of citizenship.
- Schneiderman, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, with the United States as appellee, affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Schneiderman's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 naturalized citizen's membership in the Communist Party at the time of naturalization, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to prove a lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution, thereby justifying the revocation of their citizenship on the grounds that it was “illegally procured” under the Naturalization Act of 1906?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. A naturalized citizen's membership in the Communist Party does not, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to revoke citizenship for being 'illegally procured.' To revoke citizenship, a right of great value, the government must meet its burden of proof with 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing' evidence that does not leave the issue in doubt. The statutory requirement of 'attachment to the principles of the Constitution' must be interpreted with regard for the fundamental principle of freedom of thought. Advocating for even radical political and economic changes through constitutional processes does not equate to a lack of attachment. Beliefs of a political organization cannot be imputed to a member without overt acts demonstrating the member's personal adoption of those specific beliefs, especially where the organization's doctrines are subject to multiple interpretations. The government's evidence regarding the Communist Party's principles on force and violence was conflicting and failed to meet the high standard of proof required to denaturalize Schneiderman.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Stone
Yes. A naturalized citizen's active membership and leadership in the Communist Party provides sufficient evidence to support a finding of a lack of attachment to the Constitution. The lower courts' findings of fact were abundantly supported by evidence that the Communist Party advocated the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, and that Schneiderman, as an active and intelligent member, subscribed to those principles. The majority improperly substitutes its own factual assessment for that of the trial court and imposes an inappropriately high burden of proof. The sole issue is whether Schneiderman fulfilled the congressional condition of attachment, and his behavior in promoting the doctrines of a revolutionary party demonstrates that he did not.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The Naturalization Act made the court's finding of attachment a condition precedent to citizenship, not the underlying evidence itself. Once the naturalization court, in good faith and without fraud by the applicant, is satisfied and makes the required finding of attachment, that judgment cannot be attacked years later as 'illegally procured' simply because another judge would appraise the evidence differently. To allow a de novo review of an applicant's political beliefs years after the fact would render citizenship insecure and vulnerable to shifting political winds. Absent fraud, the judicial finding of attachment should be conclusive.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Rutledge
No. A decree of naturalization is a judicial judgment, not a mere administrative grant, and it cannot be lightly overturned. To allow the merits of the facts adjudicated in that judgment to be re-examined years later would create an insecure, second-class citizenship for naturalized persons. The high burden of proof—requiring 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing' evidence—is essential precisely because a solemn judgment of a court is being challenged. This standard protects the finality of the court's decision and the security of the citizenship status it confers.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing' evidence standard for denaturalization cases, significantly strengthening the security of citizenship for naturalized Americans. By refusing to impute the political doctrines of an organization to an individual member without proof of personal advocacy, the Court protected freedom of thought and association. The ruling clarified that attachment to the Constitution accommodates advocacy for radical change, distinguishing it from advocacy for violent overthrow, thereby making it much more difficult for the government to revoke citizenship based on political affiliation alone.
