Perez v. Brownell

Decision Date31 March 1958
Docket NumberNo. 44,44
Citation78 S.Ct. 568,356 U.S. 44,2 L.Ed.2d 603
PartiesClemente Martinez PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States of America. Re
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Charles A. Horsky, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

Sol. Gen. J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, a national of the United States by birth, has been declared to have lost his American citizenship by operation of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, as amended by the Act of September 27, 1944, 58 Stat. 746. Section 401 of that Act1 provided that

'A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:

'(e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; or '(j) Departing from or remaining outside of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or during a period declared by the President to be a period of national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States.'

He seeks a reversal of the judgment against him on the ground that these provisions were beyond the power of Congress to enact.

Petitioner was born in Texas in 1909. He resided in the United States until 1919 or 1920, when he moved with his parents to Mexico, where he lived, apparently without interruption, until 1943. In 1928 he was informed that he had been born in Texas. At the outbreak of World War II, petitioner knew of the duty of male United States citizens to register for the draft, but he failed to do so. In 1943 he applied for admission to the United States as an alien railroad laborer, stating that he was a native-born citizen of Mexico, and was granted permission to enter on a temporary basis. He returned to Mexico in 1944 and shortly thereafter applied for and was granted permission, again as a native-born Mexican citizen, to enter the United States temporarily to continue his employment as a railroad laborer. Later in 1944 he returned to Mexico once more. In 1947 petitioner applied for admission to the United States at El Paso, Texas, as a citizen of the United States. At a Board of Special Inquiry hearing (and in his subsequent appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals), he admitted having remained outside of the United States to avoid military service and having voted in political elections in Mexico. He was ordered excluded on the ground that he had expatriated himself; this order was affirmed on appeal. In 1952 petitioner, claiming to be a native-born citizen of Mexico was permitted to enter the United States as an alien agricultural laborer. He surrendered in 1953 to immigration authorities in San Francisco as an alien unlawfully in the United States but claimed the right to remain by virtue of his American citizenship. After a hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer, he was ordered deported as an alien not in possession of a valid immigration visa; this order was affirmed on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Petitioner brought suit in 1954 in a United States District Court for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States.2 The court, sitting without a jury, found (in addition to the undisputed facts set forth above) that petitioner had remained outside of the United States from November 1944 to July 1947 for the purpose of avoiding service in the armed forces of the United States and that he had voted in a 'political election' in Mexico in 1946. The court, concluding that he had thereby expatriated himself, denied the relief sought by the petitioner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 235 F.2d 364. We granted certiorari because of the constitutional questions raised by the petitioner. 352 U.S. 908, 77 S.Ct. 153, 1 L.Ed.2d 117.

Statutory expatriation, as a response to problems of international relations, was first introduced just a half century ago. Long before that, however, serious friction between the United States and other nations had stirred consideration of modes of dealing with the difficulties that arose out of the conflicting claims to the allegiance of foreign-born persons naturalized in the United States, particularly when they returned to the country of their origin.

As a starting point for grappling with this tangle of problems, Congress in 1868 formally announced the traditional policy of this country that it is the 'natural and inherent right of all people' to divest themselves of their allegiance to any state, 15 Stat. 223, R.S. § 1999.* Although the impulse for this legislation had been the refusal by other nations, notably Great Britain, to recognize a right in naturalized Americans who had been their subjects to shed that former allegiance, the Act of 1868 was held by the Attorney General to apply to divestment by native-born and naturalized Americans of their United States citizenship. 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 295, 296. In addition, while the debate on the Act of 1868 was proceeding, negotiations were completed on the first of a series of treaties for the adjustment of some of the disagreements that were constantly arising between the United States and other nations concerning citizenship. These instruments typically provided that each of the signatory nations would regard as a citizen of the other such of its own citizens as became naturalized by the other. E.g., Treaty with the North German Confederation, Feb. 22, 1868, 2 Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, etc. (comp. Malloy, 1910), p. 1298, 15 Stat. 615. This series of treaties initiated this country's policy of automatic divestment of citizenship for specified conduct affecting our foreign relations.

On the basis, presumably, of the Act of 1868 and such treaties as were in force, it was the practice of the Department of State during the last third of the nineteenth century to make rulings as to forfeiture of United States citizenship by individuals who performed various acts abroad. See Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, §§ 319, 324. Naturalized citizens who returned to the country of their origin were held to have abandoned their citizenship by such actions as accepting public office there or assuming political duties. See Davis to Weile, Apr. 18, 1870, 3 Moore, Digest of International Law, 737; Davis to Taft, Jan. 18, 1883, 3 id., at 739. Native-born citizens of the United States (as well as naturalized citizens outside of the country of their origin) were generally deemed to have lost their American citizenship only if they acquired foreign citizenship. See Bayard to Suzzara-Verdi, Jan. 27, 1887, 3 id., at 714; see also Comitis v. Parkerson, C.C., 56 F. 556, 559, 22 L.R.A. 148.

No one seems to have questioned the necessity of having the State Department, in its conduct of the foreign relations of the Nation, pass on the validity of claims to American citizenship and to such of its incidents as the right to diplomatic protection. However, it was recognized in the Executive Branch that the Department had no specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship, and several of the Presidents urged Congress to define the acts by which citizens should be held to have expatriated themselves. E.g., Message of President Grant to Congress, Dec. 7, 1874, 7 Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Richardson ed. 1899) 284, 291—292. Finally in 1906, during the consideration of the bill that became the Naturalization Act of 1906, a Senate resolution and a recommendation of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs called for an examination of the problems relating to American citizenship, expatriation and protection abroad. In response to these suggestions the Secretary of State appointed the Citizenship Board of 1906, composed of the Solicitor of the State Department, the Minister to the Netherlands and the Chief of the Passport Bureau. The board conducted a study and late in 1906 made an extensive report with recommendations for legislation.

Among the recommendations of the board were that expatriation of a citizen 'be assumed' when, in time of peace, he became naturalized in a foreign state, engaged in the service of a foreign state where such service involved the taking of an oath of allegiance to that state, or domiciled in a foreign state for five years with no intention to return. Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, H.R.Doc.No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. 23. It also recommended that an American woman who married a foreigner be regarded as losing her American citizenship during coverture. Id., at 29. As to the first two recommended acts of expatriation, the report stated that 'no man should be permitted deliberately to place himself in a position where his services may be claimed by more than one government and his allegiance be due to more than one.' Id., at 23. As to the third, the board stated that more and more Americans were going abroad to live 'and the question of their protection causes increasing embarrassment to this Government in its relations with foreign powers.' Id., at 25.

Within a month of the submission of this report a bill was introduced in the House by Representative Perkins of New York based on the board's recommendations. Perkins' bill provided that a citizen would be 'deemed to have expatriated himself' when, in peacetime, he became naturalized in a foreign country or took an oath of allegiance to a foreign state; it was presumed that a naturalized citizen who resided for five years in a foreign state had ceased to be an American citizen, and an American woman who married a foreigner would take the nationality of her husband. 41 Cong.Rec. 1463—1464. Perkins stated that the bill was designed to discourage people from evading...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • US v. Schiffer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 8, 1993
    ...denials that they so intended the acts. Cf. Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 261, 100 S.Ct. at 545; Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 62-84, 78 S.Ct. 568, 578-89, 2 L.Ed.2d 603 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413, 1420 n. 5 (9th Cir.1985);14accord King v. Rog......
  • In re Schlesinger
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1961
    ... ... * * *' The Chinese Exclusion Case ... (Chae Chan Ping v. United States), 130 U.S. 581, 606, 9 ... S.Ct. 623, 630, 32 L.Ed. 1068; See also Perez v ... Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603; Ex ... parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. 3; Hines ... v. Davidowitz, ... ...
  • United States v. Falvey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 15, 1982
    ...States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 322, 57 S.Ct. 216, 221, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936); See also Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 62, 78 S.Ct. 568, 578, 2 L.Ed.2d 603 (1958). 9 FISA also permits warrantless electronic surveillance in certain limited circumstances which are not invo......
  • Trop v. Dulles
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1958
    ...United States citizenship and become stateless by reason of his conviction by court-martial for wartime desertion. As in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, the issue before us is whether this forfeiture of citizenship comports with the The facts are not in dispute. In 1944 petiti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Head of state immunity as sole executive lawmaking.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 44 No. 4, October 2011
    • October 1, 2011
    ...(1968) ("[T]he Constitution entrusts to the President and the Congress [the field of foreign affairs]."). (361.) See Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 57 (1958) ("Although there is in the Constitution no specific grant to Congress of power to enact legislation for the effective regulation of ......
  • The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 8, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...Relief, Fitisemanu v. United States, 1 F.4th 862 (2021) (Nos. 20-4017, 20-4019). (304.) See supra Part I. (305.) Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64 (1958) (Warren, C.J., (306.) U.S. CONST, amend. XIV, [section] 1. (307.) Wong Kim Ark v. United States, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). (308.) See Fitisem......
  • Abolishing citizenship: resolving the irreconcilability between 'soil' and 'blood' political membership and anti-racist democracy
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 36-2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...See, e.g. , SHARMA, supra note 5, at 14, 273. 396. HANNAH ARENDT, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM 296–98 (1951). 397. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64, 78 (1958) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). 398. GUNDOGDU, supra note 379, at 19. 399. Jones, s upra note 354. 2022] ABOLISHING CITIZENSHIP 729 ......
  • Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights
    • United States
    • Sage Political Research Quarterly No. 13-2, June 1960
    • June 1, 1960
    ...Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 578 (1958); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Dayton v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 144 (1958); Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 129 (1958); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958); Lawn v. U.S., 355 U.S. 339 (1958); Eubanks 288 289 federal gove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT