Vance v. Terrazas
444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove expatriation, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a citizen not only voluntarily committed a statutorily designated expatriating act but also possessed the specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship.
Facts:
- Laurence J. Terrazas was born in the United States to a Mexican citizen father, thereby acquiring dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Mexico from birth.
- At age 22, while he was a student in Monterrey, Mexico, Terrazas executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality.
- In the application, Terrazas swore an oath of allegiance to the Mexican Republic.
- The application also contained a statement in which Terrazas expressly renounced his United States citizenship and any loyalty to the United States.
- On April 3, 1971, Terrazas received the certificate of Mexican nationality, which recited his oath and his renunciation of all other nationalities, including that of the United States.
- Terrazas read and understood the certificate upon receiving it.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of State issued a certificate of loss of nationality against Laurence J. Terrazas.
- The Board of Appellate Review of the Department of State affirmed the certificate of loss.
- Terrazas filed suit against the Secretary of State in U.S. District Court, seeking a declaration of his United States nationality.
- The District Court held a de novo trial and concluded that the government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Terrazas had voluntarily relinquished his citizenship, ruling against Terrazas.
- Terrazas, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the Constitution requires proof by 'clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence' and that the statutory preponderance standard was unconstitutional. It remanded the case.
- The Secretary of State, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 U.S. Constitution permit Congress to enact a statute providing that loss of citizenship will be found if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a citizen voluntarily performed a specified expatriating act with the intent to relinquish citizenship?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The Constitution permits Congress to legislate that expatriation occurs when it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a citizen has voluntarily committed a statutory expatriating act with the specific intent to relinquish citizenship. Building on Afroyim v. Rusk, the Court held that citizenship cannot be taken away without the citizen's 'assent,' which requires a specific intent to relinquish it; merely performing an expatriating act is not enough. However, Congress has the constitutional authority to prescribe rules of evidence and standards of proof. The 'preponderance of the evidence' standard in § 1481(c) is a constitutionally permissible standard for a civil proceeding like expatriation, which does not threaten a loss of liberty in the same way as criminal or involuntary commitment cases. Furthermore, the statutory presumption that the expatriating act was performed voluntarily is also constitutional, as it reflects the ordinary rule that duress is an affirmative defense to be proven by the party claiming it.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. A person who acquires citizenship by birth in the United States can lose that citizenship only by formally renouncing it before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer, as specified by statute. Under Afroyim v. Rusk, the only way citizenship can be lost is by voluntary renunciation, which must be done through the formal procedures Congress has established. Terrazas did not follow this procedure. Furthermore, for a dual national like Terrazas, swearing an oath of allegiance to the other country of their citizenship is not an act inconsistent with U.S. citizenship, as a person owes allegiance to any country of which they are a citizen.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Marshall
Partially Yes, Partially No. While specific intent to renounce citizenship must be proven, the preponderance of the evidence standard is constitutionally insufficient. The loss of citizenship is a devastating penalty, a 'loss of the right to have rights,' which is comparable to a loss of liberty. Given the profound importance of American citizenship, due process requires a higher standard of proof. Therefore, the government should be required to prove its case by 'clear and convincing evidence.'
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Stevens
Partially Yes, Partially No. While specific intent to renounce citizenship is a constitutional prerequisite for expatriation under Afroyim, the statute itself, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2), cannot be fairly read to include such a requirement; the Court has effectively rewritten an unambiguous statute. Furthermore, the interest in retaining citizenship is a fundamental aspect of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause. Consequently, the Constitution requires a 'clear and convincing' standard of proof, not a mere preponderance of the evidence, before such a valuable right can be taken away.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the holding of Afroyim v. Rusk by establishing a two-part test for expatriation: a voluntary act plus specific intent to relinquish citizenship. It is significant for upholding Congress's power to set the evidentiary standard in this area, ruling that the statutory 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is constitutionally sound. This decision lowered the burden of proof for the government compared to the judicially-preferred 'clear and convincing' standard from prior cases, balancing the constitutional protection of citizenship with legislative authority over judicial procedure.
Unlock the full brief for Vance v. Terrazas