United States v. Menasche
348 U.S. 528 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 405(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a general savings clause, preserves an alien's 'status' or 'right in process of acquisition' to citizenship under a prior law if the alien took an affirmative step, such as filing a declaration of intention, before the 1952 Act's effective date. This protection applies even if the formal petition for naturalization is filed after the new Act takes effect.
Facts:
- Menasche was admitted for permanent residence in the United States on March 7, 1948.
- In April 1948, he filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, as required by the then-governing Nationality Act of 1940.
- Over the next five years, Menasche was absent from the U.S. on business for several periods, totaling approximately 44 months, but did not abandon his U.S. residence.
- The 1940 Act required five years of residence for naturalization, a requirement Menasche was on track to meet.
- On December 24, 1952, before Menasche's five-year residency was complete, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 became effective.
- The 1952 Act imposed a new requirement that an alien be physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the five-year residency period.
- When Menasche filed his petition for naturalization on April 24, 1953, he met the requirements of the 1940 Act but lacked 14 months of fulfilling the new physical presence requirement of the 1952 Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Menasche filed a petition for naturalization in a United States District Court.
- The district court admitted Menasche to citizenship, holding that his rights were preserved by the savings clause of the 1952 Act.
- The United States government, as the opposing party, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
- The United States (petitioner) then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 an alien's filing of a declaration of intention to become a citizen under the Nationality Act of 1940 create a 'status' or 'right in process of acquisition' that is preserved by the general savings clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (§ 405(a)), thereby allowing the alien to be naturalized under the old law's requirements even if the petition for naturalization is filed after the 1952 Act took effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, filing a declaration of intention under the prior law creates a 'status' or 'right in process of acquisition' preserved by § 405(a) of the new Act. The Court reasoned that the history and consistent broadening of savings clauses in immigration law demonstrates a well-established congressional policy not to strip aliens of advantages gained under prior laws. The addition of terms like 'status' and 'right in process of acquisition' to § 405(a) was intended to protect inchoate rights, such as those initiated by Menasche's affirmative act of filing a declaration. The government's argument that § 405(b), which addresses petitions filed before the Act, is the exclusive provision for naturalization petitions is incorrect; the broad sweep of § 405(a) applies unless 'otherwise specifically provided,' and the negative implication of § 405(b) is not specific enough to override it. Interpreting the statute otherwise would 'emasculate' § 405(a), violating the cardinal principle of statutory construction to give effect to every part of a statute.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that general statutory savings clauses should be interpreted broadly to protect rights and statuses that are in the process of being acquired when a law changes. It solidifies the principle that an individual's 'inchoate right,' initiated by taking a formal preliminary step under an old legal regime, is a protectable interest against new, more restrictive requirements. The ruling sets a precedent for statutory interpretation, requiring Congress to be very specific if it wishes to retroactively eliminate advantages that individuals have already begun to secure. This has a significant impact on immigration law and other areas where long-term processes for obtaining a government benefit can be interrupted by legislative changes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Menasche