Miller v. Albright

1998-04-22

Headline: Court upholds rule requiring formal paternity proof for some out-of-wedlock foreign-born children of U.S. fathers, making it harder for those children to be immediately recognized as U.S. citizens.

Holding: The Court holds that requiring out-of-wedlock foreign-born children of citizen fathers to obtain formal proof of paternity while minors is constitutional because the requirements reasonably further proof of parentage and ties to the United States.

Real World Impact:

Requires paternity proof before age 18 for some foreign-born, out-of-wedlock children to claim citizenship.
Allows State Department to deny registration or passports without required documentation.
Most affects children of U.S. fathers stationed abroad and similar cases.

Topics: citizenship rules, children born abroad, out-of-wedlock status, gender and immigration

Summary

Background

The case concerns a woman born in the Philippines in 1970 to a Filipino mother and an American father then stationed there. Her father later obtained a Texas paternity decree. The State Department denied her application to register as a U.S. citizen because §1409(a)(4) requires children born abroad out of wedlock to citizen fathers to have paternity proved or legitimated while minors. She sued and the case reached this Court after earlier venue and standing disputes.

Reasoning

The question was whether §1409's different rules for unmarried mothers and fathers violate the Fifth Amendment. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court and joined by the Chief Justice, held the provision constitutional. The majority said the law does not bar proof of citizenship later, requires reliable proof of parentage (clear-and-convincing standard and alternatives), and serves legitimate interests in deterring fraud and promoting parental and national ties; it therefore is not arbitrary. Separate opinions addressed standing and remedies, and two dissents found the gender-based distinction unconstitutional.

Real world impact

The practical effect is that the Government may demand formal proof of paternity or legitimation while a claimant is a minor before recognizing citizenship through a citizen father. That makes it harder for some foreign-born, out-of-wedlock children to obtain registration or a passport unless timely steps are taken. The ruling affirms Congress's tailored requirements; dissenting justices would have struck the gender-based rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Separate opinions: Justice O'Connor would limit third-party standing; Justice Scalia stressed courts cannot confer citizenship beyond Congress's rules; Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissented, arguing the sex-based distinctions fail heightened scrutiny and are unconstitutional.