| Nguyen v. INS | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 9, 2001 Decided June 11, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Tuan Anh Nguyen and Joseph Boulais v. Immigration and Naturalization Service |
| Docket no. | 99-2071 |
| Citations | 533 U.S. 53 (more) 121 S. Ct. 2053; 150 L. Ed. 2d 115 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from BIA rejected, 208 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1305 (2000) |
| Subsequent | Petition for writ of habeas corpus rejected, 400 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2005) |
| Holding | |
| A law providing narrower standards for United States citizenship for a child born abroad out of wedlock to an American father, as opposed to an American mother, was justified by important government interests and did not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sec. 309 (8 U.S.C. § 1409) | |
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.[1][2]
- ^ Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 60–61.
- ^ "Parent's Sex May Be Factor in Citizenship, Court Rules; Justices Uphold Law Favoring U.S. Mothers of Out-of-Wedlock Children". Washington Post. June 12, 2001.
The government may make it more difficult for children born out of wedlock overseas to U.S. citizen fathers to claim citizenship than for the children of American mothers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, rejecting a claim that the different treatment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search