Costello v. United States

1961-02-20

Headline: Court affirms revocation of a naturalized citizen’s citizenship for willfully lying about his occupation, upholding government power to strip citizenship from someone who concealed large-scale bootlegging.

Holding: The Court held that the Government proved by clear, convincing evidence that a naturalized citizen willfully misrepresented his occupation as "real estate" while running large-scale bootlegging, and it upheld revocation of his citizenship.

Real World Impact:

Allows government to strip citizenship for false occupation statements decades later.
Permits courts to use admissions despite earlier illegal wiretaps when independent sources exist.
Rejects delay defense; long passage of time alone won't bar denaturalization.

Topics: citizenship revocation, immigration fraud, illegal income concealment, wiretaps and evidence

Summary

Background

A man who became a naturalized citizen in 1925 said his occupation was "real estate" on naturalization forms and to an examiner. Years later the Government brought a lawsuit under the immigration statute claiming he had actually run a large bootlegging operation and had willfully lied to obtain citizenship. A federal district court revoked his citizenship in 1959, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed several defenses raised by the man.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Government proved by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the man willfully misrepresented his occupation. The Court stressed that loss of citizenship is serious and the Government bears a heavy burden, but found abundant proof: the man’s admissions in government inquiries from 1938–1947, testimony from associates, and public records showing only limited real estate dealings. The Court rejected the claim that admissions were unusable because of unrelated illegal wiretaps, finding the admissions flowed from independent sources and public records. It also rejected delay and laches defenses, finding no prejudice from the government’s long delay. On procedure, the Court held that an earlier dismissal for failure to file the required affidavit of good cause did not bar a new proceeding.

Real world impact

The decision allows the Government to pursue denaturalization when a naturalized citizen knowingly concealed a material fact, even after many years, provided the Government meets the high proof standard. Evidence that admissions stem from independent sources can overcome concerns about earlier illegal surveillance.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the naturalization form asked only for "occupation," that the defendant did have a real-estate corporation and that the form’s ambiguity should be resolved for the citizen.