Vance v. Terrazas
Encyclopedia
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252
(1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established
that a United States citizen
cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. However, the Court ruled that a person's intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
While enrolled at a Mexican university in 1970, Terrazas applied for a certificate of Mexican nationality. As part of his application, Terrazas signed a statement renouncing "United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America."
During subsequent discussions with an American consular official, Terrazas gave conflicting answers as to whether or not he had truly intended to abandon his rights as a U.S. citizen when he applied for his certificate of Mexican nationality. The State Department eventually concluded that he had lost his U.S. citizenship—a decision which Terrazas appealed, first before the State Department's board of appellate review, and subsequently to the courts.
Before the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk
, U.S. law had provided for numerous ways for U.S. citizens to lose their citizenship. In its Afroyim ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment
barred Congress from revoking anyone's U.S. citizenship without their consent. Specifically, the court held that a law automatically revoking the U.S. citizenship of anyone who had voted in a foreign election was unconstitutional and unenforceable. However, U.S. law continued after Afroyim to list several other "expatriating acts," the voluntary performance of any of which would result in automatic loss of citizenship.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that according to Afroyim v. Rusk, "Congress is constitutionally devoid of the power" to revoke citizenship; and further, that Congress had no power to legislate any evidentiary standard for proving Terrazas's intent to relinquish his citizenship that fell short of a requirement of proof by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The Secretary of State appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, questioning not only the appellate court's finding on the required standard of proof, but also challenging the finding that a separate intent to give up citizenship was required (as opposed merely to the performance of a designated expatriating act).
"emphasized that loss of citizenship requires the individual's 'assent,' . . . in addition to his voluntary commission of the expatriating act"—and that "the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship." On this point, the Supreme Court agreed with the 7th Circuit ruling in Terrazas's favor.
The majority then turned its attention to the question of a standard of proof in loss-of-citizenship cases. Terrazas had argued—and the 7th Circuit had agreed—that the 14th Amendment, as interpreted in Afroyim, had left Congress without any constitutional authority to set the standard of proof for intent to relinquish citizenship at a level any lower than one of clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court majority rejected this claim and held that Congress was within its rights to specify a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) when cases alleging loss of U.S. citizenship were involved.
Finally, the Supreme Court majority upheld the validity of another aspect of the law as enacted by Congress—namely, that it was all right for the government to assume that a potentially expatriating act had been performed voluntarily, and that any claim that a person had acted under duress was up to the person involved to establish by preponderance of evidence.
The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on whether or not Terrazas had lost his U.S. citizenship; rather, it remanded the case back to the original trial court (a Federal District Court
in Illinois
) for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Although the court's membership was divided on the question of whether a "preponderance of evidence" standard was sufficient for establishing someone's intent to give up their U.S. citizenship, all nine justices — the five who joined in the majority opinion, and also the four who dissented (see below), unanimously agreed with the key holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that U.S. citizenship was safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment and could not be taken away by an act of Congress from a person who had not wanted to give it up.
Justice Thurgood Marshall
rejected the majority's decision that an intent to give up U.S. citizenship could be established merely by a preponderance of evidence. Arguing that "the Court's casual dismissal of the importance of American citizenship cannot withstand scrutiny", he said he "would hold that a citizen may not lose his citizenship in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that he intended to do so."
Justice John Paul Stevens
also argued that "a person's interest in retaining his American citizenship is surely an aspect of 'liberty' of which he cannot be deprived without due process of law," and that "due process requires that a clear and convincing standard of proof be met" in Terrazas' case or others like it. Additionally, Stevens felt that Congress had not adequately addressed the question of specific intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. "Since we accept dual citizenship," he wrote, "taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign government is not necessarily inconsistent with an intent to remain an American citizen. Moreover, as now written, the statute cannot fairly be read to require a finding of specific intent to relinquish citizenship."
Justices William J. Brennan, Jr.
, and Potter Stewart
argued that since Terrazas was born a dual U.S./Mexican national, his having taken an oath of allegiance to Mexico was not in any way inconsistent with his also being a citizen of the U.S. In Brennan's words: "The formal oath [of allegiance to Mexico] adds nothing to the existing foreign citizenship and, therefore, cannot affect his United States citizenship." Brennan argued, in addition, that since "Congress has provided for a procedure by which one may formally renounce citizenship" before U.S. consular officials—a procedure which it was conceded by all that Terrazas had not availed himself of—Terrazas was still a U.S. citizen.
replacing Cyrus Vance
in 1980, and Alexander Haig
assuming the position in 1981 — the subsequent lower court cases are known as Terrazas v. Muskie and Terrazas v. Haig.
Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1986 to specify, as required by Vance v. Terrazas, that a potentially expatriating act may result in loss of U.S. citizenship only if it was performed "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".
Although the Terrazas ruling left intact Congress's right to specify a preponderance-of-evidence standard for judging intent to give up U.S. citizenship, the State Department in 1990 adopted a policy which, in most cases, pursues loss-of-citizenship proceedings only when an individual affirmatively states that he or she intends to relinquish U.S. citizenship. When a case involving possible expatriation comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer, the officer will normally "simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
A bill was introduced in 2005 which sought, among other things, to force the State Department to abolish the above policy on loss of citizenship and reinstate its pre-1990 policy "of viewing dual/multiple citizenship as problematic and as something to be discouraged, not encouraged." However, this bill never made it to the floor of the House and died in committee when the 109th Congress adjourned.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established
Stare decisis
Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions...
that a United States citizen
Citizenship in the United States
Citizenship in the United States is a status given to individuals that entails specific rights, duties, privileges, and benefits between the United States and the individual...
cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. However, the Court ruled that a person's intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
Background
Laurence Terrazas was born in the United States in 1947. Since his father was Mexican, Terrazas held both U.S. and Mexican citizenship at birth.While enrolled at a Mexican university in 1970, Terrazas applied for a certificate of Mexican nationality. As part of his application, Terrazas signed a statement renouncing "United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America."
During subsequent discussions with an American consular official, Terrazas gave conflicting answers as to whether or not he had truly intended to abandon his rights as a U.S. citizen when he applied for his certificate of Mexican nationality. The State Department eventually concluded that he had lost his U.S. citizenship—a decision which Terrazas appealed, first before the State Department's board of appellate review, and subsequently to the courts.
Before the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk
Afroyim v. Rusk
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a person born or naturalized in the United States cannot be deprived of his or her citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of a man...
, U.S. law had provided for numerous ways for U.S. citizens to lose their citizenship. In its Afroyim ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
barred Congress from revoking anyone's U.S. citizenship without their consent. Specifically, the court held that a law automatically revoking the U.S. citizenship of anyone who had voted in a foreign election was unconstitutional and unenforceable. However, U.S. law continued after Afroyim to list several other "expatriating acts," the voluntary performance of any of which would result in automatic loss of citizenship.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that according to Afroyim v. Rusk, "Congress is constitutionally devoid of the power" to revoke citizenship; and further, that Congress had no power to legislate any evidentiary standard for proving Terrazas's intent to relinquish his citizenship that fell short of a requirement of proof by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The Secretary of State appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, questioning not only the appellate court's finding on the required standard of proof, but also challenging the finding that a separate intent to give up citizenship was required (as opposed merely to the performance of a designated expatriating act).
Opinion of the Court
A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court held, first, that it was not enough for the government to prove "the voluntary commission of an act, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, that 'is so inherently inconsistent with the continued retention of American citizenship that Congress may accord to it its natural consequences, i. e., loss of nationality.'" Rather, the court held that its 1967 ruling in Afroyim v. RuskAfroyim v. Rusk
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a person born or naturalized in the United States cannot be deprived of his or her citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of a man...
"emphasized that loss of citizenship requires the individual's 'assent,' . . . in addition to his voluntary commission of the expatriating act"—and that "the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship." On this point, the Supreme Court agreed with the 7th Circuit ruling in Terrazas's favor.
The majority then turned its attention to the question of a standard of proof in loss-of-citizenship cases. Terrazas had argued—and the 7th Circuit had agreed—that the 14th Amendment, as interpreted in Afroyim, had left Congress without any constitutional authority to set the standard of proof for intent to relinquish citizenship at a level any lower than one of clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court majority rejected this claim and held that Congress was within its rights to specify a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) when cases alleging loss of U.S. citizenship were involved.
Finally, the Supreme Court majority upheld the validity of another aspect of the law as enacted by Congress—namely, that it was all right for the government to assume that a potentially expatriating act had been performed voluntarily, and that any claim that a person had acted under duress was up to the person involved to establish by preponderance of evidence.
The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on whether or not Terrazas had lost his U.S. citizenship; rather, it remanded the case back to the original trial court (a Federal District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
in Illinois
Illinois
Illinois is the fifth-most populous state of the United States of America, and is often noted for being a microcosm of the entire country. With Chicago in the northeast, small industrial cities and great agricultural productivity in central and northern Illinois, and natural resources like coal,...
) for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Although the court's membership was divided on the question of whether a "preponderance of evidence" standard was sufficient for establishing someone's intent to give up their U.S. citizenship, all nine justices — the five who joined in the majority opinion, and also the four who dissented (see below), unanimously agreed with the key holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that U.S. citizenship was safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment and could not be taken away by an act of Congress from a person who had not wanted to give it up.
Dissents
The four justices who disagreed with the majority filed three separate dissenting opinions. All of the dissenting justices supported the Afroyim v. Rusk principle that retention of U.S. citizenship was a constitutionally protected right, and they all agreed (contrary to the court's majority) that Terrazas's actions should not have led to the loss of his U.S. citizenship.Justice Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
rejected the majority's decision that an intent to give up U.S. citizenship could be established merely by a preponderance of evidence. Arguing that "the Court's casual dismissal of the importance of American citizenship cannot withstand scrutiny", he said he "would hold that a citizen may not lose his citizenship in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that he intended to do so."
Justice John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
also argued that "a person's interest in retaining his American citizenship is surely an aspect of 'liberty' of which he cannot be deprived without due process of law," and that "due process requires that a clear and convincing standard of proof be met" in Terrazas' case or others like it. Additionally, Stevens felt that Congress had not adequately addressed the question of specific intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. "Since we accept dual citizenship," he wrote, "taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign government is not necessarily inconsistent with an intent to remain an American citizen. Moreover, as now written, the statute cannot fairly be read to require a finding of specific intent to relinquish citizenship."
Justices William J. Brennan, Jr.
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
, and Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
argued that since Terrazas was born a dual U.S./Mexican national, his having taken an oath of allegiance to Mexico was not in any way inconsistent with his also being a citizen of the U.S. In Brennan's words: "The formal oath [of allegiance to Mexico] adds nothing to the existing foreign citizenship and, therefore, cannot affect his United States citizenship." Brennan argued, in addition, that since "Congress has provided for a procedure by which one may formally renounce citizenship" before U.S. consular officials—a procedure which it was conceded by all that Terrazas had not availed himself of—Terrazas was still a U.S. citizen.
Subsequent developments
After receiving Terrazas's case back from the Supreme Court on remand, the district court again ruled that Terrazas had lost his U.S. citizenship. On subsequent appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its earlier decision and—this time using a preponderance-of-evidence standard per the instructions of the Supreme Court—ruled against him, finding this time that there was "abundant evidence that plaintiff intended to renounce his United States citizenship when he acquired the Certificate of Mexican Nationality willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily." Since the office of U.S. Secretary of State changed hands twice following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case — Edmund MuskieEdmund Muskie
Edmund Sixtus "Ed" Muskie was an American politician from Rumford, Maine. He served as Governor of Maine from 1955 to 1959, as a member of the United States Senate from 1959 to 1980, and as Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter from 1980 to 1981...
replacing Cyrus Vance
Cyrus Vance
Cyrus Roberts Vance was an American lawyer and United States Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1980...
in 1980, and Alexander Haig
Alexander Haig
Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr. was a United States Army general who served as the United States Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan and White House Chief of Staff under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford...
assuming the position in 1981 — the subsequent lower court cases are known as Terrazas v. Muskie and Terrazas v. Haig.
Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1986 to specify, as required by Vance v. Terrazas, that a potentially expatriating act may result in loss of U.S. citizenship only if it was performed "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".
Although the Terrazas ruling left intact Congress's right to specify a preponderance-of-evidence standard for judging intent to give up U.S. citizenship, the State Department in 1990 adopted a policy which, in most cases, pursues loss-of-citizenship proceedings only when an individual affirmatively states that he or she intends to relinquish U.S. citizenship. When a case involving possible expatriation comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer, the officer will normally "simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship."
A bill was introduced in 2005 which sought, among other things, to force the State Department to abolish the above policy on loss of citizenship and reinstate its pre-1990 policy "of viewing dual/multiple citizenship as problematic and as something to be discouraged, not encouraged." However, this bill never made it to the floor of the House and died in committee when the 109th Congress adjourned.
See also
- Multiple citizenshipMultiple citizenshipMultiple citizenship is a status in which a person is concurrently regarded as a citizen under the laws of more than one state. Multiple citizenships exist because different countries use different, and not necessarily mutually exclusive, citizenship requirements...
- United States nationality lawUnited States nationality lawArticle I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the legal requirements for the acquisition of, and divestiture from, citizenship of...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 444