Zartarian v. Billings

1907-01-07
Share:

Headline: Upheld exclusion of a foreign-born teenage daughter with trachoma, rejecting her claim to U.S. citizenship through her father’s naturalization and allowing immigration officials to bar her entry on health grounds.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows immigration officials to bar noncitizen children with contagious diseases from entry.
  • Affirms that derivative citizenship requires the child to have dwelt in the United States.
  • Treats medical exclusion board findings as final with limited court review under the statute.
Topics: immigration exclusions, derivative citizenship, public-health entry rules, border medical inspections

Summary

Background

A father, Charles Zartarian, who became a U.S. citizen in 1896, asked a federal court to free his daughter, Mariam, who was held by immigration authorities in Boston. Mariam was born in Turkey before her father left, traveled from Naples, and arrived at Boston on April 18, 1905. A board of inquiry found she had trachoma, a contagious eye disease, and she was debarred from landing under the 1903 immigration law that excludes people with dangerous contagious diseases.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Mariam was already a U.S. citizen because her father had been naturalized and she was under twenty-one at that time. The Court explained that citizenship from a parent is created by statute and that the controlling law applies only to children who were "dwelling in the United States." Because Mariam had never legally landed or lived in the United States, she did not meet that statutory requirement. The Court also noted the immigration board’s finding of contagious disease is final under the statute and that any change must come from Congress.

Real world impact

The decision means immigration officials may exclude foreign-born children who never lived in the United States even if a parent is a naturalized citizen, when the child has a contagious disease. It confirms that derivative citizenship depends on statutory requirements like actually dwelling in the United States. The Court left open that Congress could change these rules by legislation.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases