News & Insights

Facts of the Case

Under the INA, a child born abroad could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if one parent was a U.S. citizen, subject to certain residency requirements. Married U.S.-citizen parents had to meet a longer physical-presence requirement, while unwed U.S.-citizen mothers only needed one year of continuous physical presence in the United States before the child’s birth. Unwed U.S.-citizen fathers, however, had to satisfy the longer physical-presence requirement applicable to married parents.

Luis Ramón Morales-Santana, born in the Dominican Republic to an unwed U.S.-citizen father, challenged the INA after the government sought his removal based on prior criminal convictions. Morales-Santana argued that the law’s unequal residency requirements for unwed fathers and mothers violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.

Court’s Analysis

The Court applied heightened scrutiny, required for gender-based classifications, and concluded that the distinction in residency requirements was based on outdated and discriminatory stereotypes about the roles of mothers and fathers. The law presumed unwed mothers were the sole caregivers of nonmarital children and unwed fathers were less likely to establish relationships with their children.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the disparity aimed to reduce the risk of statelessness for children of unwed mothers. It found no evidence that Congress had specifically designed the law for this purpose, and it noted that statelessness risks were not exclusive to children of unwed mothers.

Outcome

The Court held the gender-based distinction in the INA unconstitutional. However, it declined to grant Morales-Santana citizenship directly or apply the more lenient rule for unwed mothers to unwed fathers. Instead, it deferred to Congress to adopt a uniform rule. In the interim, the Court applied the stricter physical-presence requirement to both unwed mothers and fathers prospectively.