Perez v. Brownell

1958-03-31

Headline: Upheld a law allowing Congress to strip U.S. citizenship for voting in foreign political elections, affirming that Americans who vote abroad can lose citizenship and be excluded from the United States.

Holding: The Court ruled that Congress may withdraw American citizenship from a native-born person who votes in a foreign political election, and it affirmed the lower courts’ finding that the petitioner expatriated himself.

Real World Impact:

Allows Congress to strip citizenship for voting in a foreign political election.
Affirms that voting abroad can be used to deny entry or residency.
Leaves other expatriation rules (like draft evasion) undecided in this case.

Topics: citizenship loss, voting abroad, immigration exclusion, foreign affairs regulation

Summary

Background

The dispute involved a man born in Texas who lived much of his life in Mexico, voted in a Mexican election in 1946, and admitted he stayed abroad to avoid military service. Government officers treated him as an expatriate under the Nationality Act of 1940, which says voting in a foreign political election can cause loss of U.S. nationality; lower courts agreed and denied his claim to be a U.S. national.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress can make voting in a foreign political election a ground for losing citizenship. The majority said yes: history, treaties, and congressional concern about friction in foreign relations support a rule that links certain foreign political acts to loss of nationality. The Court found it reasonable for Congress to tie the diplomatic risks of such voting to the remedy of terminating citizenship and affirmed the lower courts. The majority declined to decide a related draft-evasion provision in the same statute.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the decision confirms that Americans who participate in certain foreign political acts can be treated as having expatriated themselves and face denial of U.S. nationality and related immigration consequences. The ruling settles the challenge to the voting clause (§401(e)) but leaves other parts of the law (for example, the draft-evasion clause) for another day.

Dissents or concurrances

A strong dissent argued that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be taken away by broad legislation and that merely voting abroad does not show voluntary abandonment of citizenship; another Justice agreed the statute is too broad in application.