Trop v. Dulles
356 U.S. 86 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Depriving a native-born U.S. citizen of their nationality as a punishment for a crime is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1944, Albert Trop was a private in the U.S. Army serving in French Morocco during World War II.
- On May 22, 1944, Trop escaped from a military stockade where he had been confined for a prior disciplinary breach.
- The following day, after being absent for less than 24 hours, Trop willingly surrendered to an officer on an Army truck while walking back toward his base.
- Trop testified that he and a companion had decided to return because they were cold, hungry, and had no money.
- A general court-martial subsequently convicted Trop of desertion and sentenced him to three years of hard labor and a dishonorable discharge.
- In 1952, Trop applied for a U.S. passport.
- His passport application was denied on the grounds that Section 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 had automatically stripped him of his citizenship due to his conviction and dishonorable discharge for wartime desertion.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1955, Albert Trop filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that he was a U.S. citizen.
- The District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment.
- Trop appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with Chief Judge Clark dissenting.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which strips a native-born American of their citizenship for a conviction of wartime desertion, violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes, Section 401(g) violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court holds that denationalization as a punishment is unconstitutional because it results in the 'total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.' This punishment is more primitive than torture, as it strips the citizen of their political existence and the fundamental 'right to have rights,' leaving them stateless. The Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment is not static; it must draw its meaning from 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' By these modern standards, statelessness as a penalty is an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment that degrades human dignity.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. Even if citizenship could be involuntarily taken away, the power to do so cannot be vested in military authorities. Forfeiture of citizenship is a penalty of such magnitude that guilt must be determined in a civilian court where the full protections of the Bill of Rights are guaranteed, not by a military tribunal whose main function is to maintain discipline, not to adjudicate fundamental civil rights.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional, but on the grounds that it exceeds Congress's war power. Unlike expatriation for voting in a foreign election, which is rationally connected to the foreign affairs power, denationalization for desertion serves no purpose other than as an added punishment. This sanction is not a means 'reasonably calculated' to wage war effectively; it does not deter desertion or otherwise aid the military effort. Instead, it functions as 'naked vengeance' and is not a rational exercise of the war power, making it an unconstitutional overreach by Congress.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No, the statute does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Congress possesses broad war powers and could rationally conclude that stripping citizenship from wartime deserters is necessary to maintain military discipline and morale. Denationalization is not 'punishment' in the constitutional sense but rather a regulatory measure related to the obligations of citizenship. Even if considered punishment, it is not 'cruel and unusual' because desertion is a capital offense; it is illogical to argue that loss of citizenship is a 'fate worse than death.' The Court should practice judicial restraint and defer to Congress's judgment on matters of national defense.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the 'evolving standards of decency' as the framework for interpreting the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. It significantly expanded the scope of the amendment beyond physical torture to include punishments that strip an individual of their dignity and status in society. Although Chief Justice Warren's opinion was a plurality, its reasoning became highly influential, affirming that the meaning of 'cruel and unusual' is not fixed but changes as society's moral standards mature. The decision solidifies the principle that citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be used as a tool for criminal punishment.
