Gender-Based Citizenship Laws: Upholding Different Standards for Unmarried U.S. Citizen Fathers and Mothers
Case: Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
Substance of the Case
This case examines the constitutionality of gender-based distinctions in U.S. citizenship laws under 8 U.S.C. § 1409, which impose different requirements on unmarried U.S. citizen fathers and mothers for transmitting citizenship to their children born abroad and out of wedlock. Specifically, the statute requires fathers to fulfill additional steps, such as proving paternity and legitimizing the child, before the child turns 18, while mothers face less burdensome requirements.
Facts of the Case
- Tuan Anh Nguyen was born out of wedlock in Vietnam to a U.S. citizen father and a Vietnamese mother.
- Nguyen moved to the U.S. at age six and became a lawful permanent resident, raised by his father.
- After pleading guilty to sexual assault at age 22, Nguyen faced deportation.
- He argued he was a U.S. citizen through his father, but he did not satisfy the requirements of § 1409(a), which include legitimization or formal acknowledgment of paternity before age 18.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Fifth Circuit upheld the deportation, leading to a Supreme Court review.
Court’s Analysis
The Court applied heightened scrutiny to the gender-based classification, analyzing whether it served important governmental objectives and whether the means employed were substantially related to those objectives. Two key governmental interests were identified:
- Biological Parent-Child Relationship: The law ensures that a paternal biological link is established before citizenship is conferred. Unlike mothers, whose biological connection is evident at birth, fathers must take additional steps to prove paternity.
- Opportunity for a Parent-Child Relationship: The law promotes meaningful ties between the father and child, ensuring a connection to the United States. Congress viewed these steps as critical for affirming the child’s ties to the U.S.
Conclusion and Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld the statute in a 5-4 decision, affirming that § 1409’s distinctions between fathers and mothers were constitutional. It ruled that the differing requirements served important governmental interests and were substantially related to achieving those objectives. The decision emphasized the practical differences between maternal and paternal roles at birth, rejecting claims that the law relied on gender stereotypes.
Justice O’Connor dissented, arguing the law perpetuated outdated gender roles and failed to meet the standards of heightened scrutiny for sex-based classifications.
Let’s Get Started
Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.
355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)
303-514-6589
