Sessions v. Morales-Santana

Supreme Court of the United States
582 U. S. ____ (2017) (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal law that imposes different physical-presence requirements on unwed U.S.-citizen mothers and fathers for the purpose of transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it is based on impermissible gender stereotypes.

Facts:

José Morales was born a U.S. citizen in Puerto Rico in 1900 and lived there for nearly two decades.
On February 27, 1919, Morales left Puerto Rico, 20 days short of his 19th birthday, to work for a U.S. company in the Dominican Republic.
Because he left before his 19th birthday, Morales failed to meet the then-applicable citizenship law's requirement for unwed fathers: ten years of physical presence in the U.S., with at least five of those years after age 14.
In 1962, Morales and Yrma Santana Montilla, a Dominican citizen, had a son, Luis Ramón Morales-Santana, in the Dominican Republic while they were unmarried.
The law for unwed U.S.-citizen mothers required only one year of continuous physical presence in the U.S. prior to the child's birth.
Morales and Santana Montilla married in 1970, and Morales was officially added to his son's birth certificate as the father.
Morales-Santana moved to the United States at age 13 in 1975.

Procedural Posture:

In 2000, the U.S. government initiated removal proceedings against Luis Ramón Morales-Santana in immigration court.
An immigration judge denied Morales-Santana's claim to derivative U.S. citizenship and ordered his removal.
In 2010, Morales-Santana filed a motion to reopen his case, which the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body, denied.
Morales-Santana (as petitioner) appealed the BIA's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit reversed the BIA's decision, finding the relevant citizenship statute unconstitutional and holding that Morales-Santana was a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. Government (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision.

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 the gender-based distinction in 8 U.S.C. § 1409, which imposes a more stringent physical-presence requirement on unwed U.S.-citizen fathers than on unwed U.S.-citizen mothers for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ginsburg

Yes, the gender-based distinction in 8 U.S.C. § 1409 violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Laws that differentiate on the basis of gender are subject to heightened scrutiny and must serve important governmental objectives through substantially related means, a standard which the government fails to meet here. The law's different treatment of unwed mothers and fathers is based on the 'stunningly anachronistic' and overbroad generalization that unwed fathers are less likely than unwed mothers to have a relationship with their children. The government's proffered justifications—ensuring a child's connection to the U.S. and preventing statelessness—are not exceedingly persuasive and are not served by the gender-based distinction. However, the proper remedy is not to extend the mother's more lenient one-year rule to fathers, as that would disrupt the broader statutory scheme; instead, the father's more stringent physical-presence requirement becomes the general rule for all unwed parents, pending congressional action.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

Yes, but for different reasons. This concurrence agrees with the majority's ultimate judgment regarding the remedy, which resolves the case. Because Luis Ramón Morales-Santana cannot obtain the relief he seeks (the conferral of citizenship), it is unnecessary for the Court to decide the constitutional question of whether the statute violated the equal protection principle or whether Morales-Santana had third-party standing to assert his father's rights. The Court's remedial holding is sufficient to reverse the Second Circuit.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the Court's modern equal protection jurisprudence by striking down a federal citizenship statute based on archaic gender stereotypes about parental roles. The decision confirms that such laws are subject to heightened scrutiny and are unlikely to survive constitutional challenge. The most significant aspect of the decision is its remedial holding; instead of 'leveling up' by extending the more favorable treatment to the disadvantaged group, the Court 'leveled down' by eliminating the exception, applying the stricter standard to all. This approach emphasizes that the Court's remedial choice is guided by perceived legislative intent, setting a precedent that may influence how courts resolve future equal protection violations in statutory benefit schemes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature