Afroyim v. Rusk

1967-05-29

Headline: Court limits Congress’ power and blocks forced loss of U.S. citizenship, overturning prior precedent and protecting Americans who live or vote abroad from involuntary expatriation.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids Congress from stripping an American of citizenship without that person's voluntary renunciation, overruling earlier precedent and invalidating a law that revoked citizenship for voting in foreign elections.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Congress from revoking citizenship without voluntary renunciation.
Stops passport denial based solely on voting in foreign elections.
Shifts expatriation disputes toward courts rather than automatic administrative loss.

Topics: citizenship rights, expatriation, voting abroad, Fourteenth Amendment

Summary

Background

The case involves a naturalized American who left the United States, acquired Israeli residence, and voted in Israeli elections in 1951. When he applied for a U.S. passport in 1960, the State Department refused and issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality under a law that stripped citizenship for voting in foreign political elections.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress may take away an American's citizenship without that person’s voluntary renunciation. The majority concluded the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizenship once acquired and forbids Congress from forcibly revoking it by general or implied powers. The Court emphasized the Amendment’s language and purpose, found legislative history ambiguous, and held that citizenship cannot be canceled by simple congressional action for acts like voting abroad.

Real world impact

The ruling reverses earlier decisions that allowed involuntary expatriation and invalidates the statute as applied here. It prevents the Government from using that type of law to deny passports or declare loss of citizenship based solely on voting in foreign elections. The decision leaves open ordinary criminal and immigration laws but stops automatic loss of nationality without a person’s voluntary choice.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting opinion argued the earlier decision was correct, citing historical practice, wartime statutes, treaties, and legislative debates that, in the dissenters’ view, showed Congress had long exercised power to expatriate in some circumstances. They would have affirmed Congress’ authority to revoke citizenship for certain foreign-affairs conduct.