Vance v. Terrazas facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Vance v. Terrazas |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 30, 1979 Decided January 15, 1980 |
|
| Full case name | Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State v. Laurence J. Terrazas |
| Citations | 444 U.S. 252 (more)
100 S. Ct. 540; 62 L. Ed. 2d 461
|
| Prior history | Terrazas v. Vance, 577 F.2d 7 (7th Cir. 1978) |
| Subsequent history | Terrazas v. Muskie, 494 F. Supp. 1017 (N.D. Ill. 1980); Terrazas v. Haig, 653 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1981) |
| Holding | |
| An American cannot have his U.S. citizenship taken away against his will. Intent to give up citizenship needs to be established by itself and cannot be irrebuttably presumed merely because a person did something established by law as an action automatically causing loss of citizenship. However, Congress has power to decide that an intent to give up citizenship may be established by preponderance of evidence. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Concur/dissent | Marshall |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Stewart (part II) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 | |
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. This case made it clear that a U.S. citizen cannot lose their citizenship unless they truly intend to give it up. The Supreme Court said that simply doing something that a law lists as a reason to lose citizenship isn't enough. There must be proof that the person actually wanted to give up their U.S. citizenship.
The Court also decided that this "intent" could be proven by a "preponderance of evidence." This means it's "more likely than not" that the person intended to give up their citizenship. This was different from what some people argued, who thought it needed "clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence."
Contents
What Happened in the Case?
Laurence Terrazas's Story
Laurence Terrazas was born in the United States in 1947. His father was Mexican. Because of Mexico's laws at the time, which followed jus sanguinis (citizenship based on parents' nationality), Terrazas was also a Mexican citizen from birth. Since he was born in the U.S., he was also a U.S. citizen under jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth). This meant he was a dual citizen of both the United States and Mexico.
In 1970, while studying in Mexico, Terrazas applied for a certificate of Mexican nationality. As part of this application, he signed a statement. This statement said he was giving up his "United States citizenship" and loyalty to any foreign government, especially the U.S.
Later, when talking to a U.S. official, Terrazas gave different answers. He seemed unsure if he really meant to give up his U.S. citizenship when he signed the paper. The U.S. State Department decided he had lost his U.S. citizenship. Terrazas disagreed and took his case to court.
Earlier Rules on Citizenship
Before 1967, U.S. law had many ways a person could lose their citizenship. But in 1967, the Supreme Court made a big decision in a case called Afroyim v. Rusk. In that case, the Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment protects U.S. citizenship. This means Congress cannot take away someone's citizenship without their permission. The Court specifically said that a law automatically taking away citizenship from someone who voted in a foreign election was unconstitutional.
However, even after Afroyim, U.S. law still listed other "expatriating acts." These were actions that, if done voluntarily, would supposedly lead to automatically losing citizenship.
The Court of Appeals' Decision
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit looked at Terrazas's case. They ruled that, based on Afroyim v. Rusk, Congress did not have the power to take away citizenship. They also said that Congress could not set a low standard for proving someone's intent to give up citizenship. They believed it needed "clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence."
The U.S. Secretary of State then asked the Supreme Court to review this decision. The Secretary questioned both the standard of proof and whether a separate intent to give up citizenship was even needed.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
Majority Opinion
A group of five out of nine Supreme Court justices agreed on the main point. They said it wasn't enough for the government to just prove that someone did an act, like swearing loyalty to another country. They explained that the Afroyim v. Rusk case from 1967 meant that losing citizenship requires the person's "agreement." This means the person must not only do the act but also intend to give up their citizenship. On this point, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision in Terrazas's favor.
Next, the majority looked at how much proof was needed. Terrazas and the lower court argued that the Fourteenth Amendment meant Congress couldn't set a standard lower than "clear and convincing evidence." But the Supreme Court disagreed. They said Congress was allowed to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard. This means the government only needs to show it's "more likely than not" that the person intended to give up their citizenship.
Finally, the Supreme Court also said that the government could assume an act was done voluntarily. If someone claimed they acted under pressure, it was up to them to prove it.
The Supreme Court did not decide if Terrazas had lost his citizenship. Instead, they sent the case back to the original trial court. This court, a Federal District Court in Illinois, would then decide the case again, following the Supreme Court's new rules.
All nine judges, even those who disagreed on some points, agreed on one very important thing. They all supported the idea from Afroyim v. Rusk that U.S. citizenship is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This means Congress cannot take it away from someone without their consent.
Dissenting Opinions
Four justices disagreed with parts of the majority's decision. They wrote three separate opinions explaining why. All of them agreed that U.S. citizenship is a protected right. They also all felt that Terrazas should not have lost his citizenship.
Justice Thurgood Marshall disagreed with using the "preponderance of evidence" standard. He argued that American citizenship is too important to be lost so easily. He believed that "clear and convincing evidence" should be required to prove someone intended to give up their citizenship.
Justice John Paul Stevens also argued that keeping American citizenship is a part of a person's "liberty." He felt that "due process of law" requires a "clear and convincing standard of proof" in such cases. Stevens also thought the law didn't clearly require a specific intent to give up citizenship. He wrote that since the U.S. allows dual citizenship, swearing loyalty to a foreign government doesn't always mean someone wants to stop being an American citizen.
Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. and Potter Stewart argued that Terrazas was born a dual citizen. They felt that his oath to Mexico didn't change his U.S. citizenship. Brennan said that the formal oath "adds nothing to the existing foreign citizenship." He also pointed out that there's a specific way to formally give up citizenship before U.S. officials, which Terrazas didn't use. Therefore, Brennan believed Terrazas was still a U.S. citizen.
What Happened Next?
After the Supreme Court sent Terrazas's case back, the district court again ruled that he had lost his citizenship. Terrazas appealed again. This time, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals changed its earlier decision. Following the Supreme Court's instructions, they used the "preponderance of evidence" standard. They found that there was "abundant evidence" that Terrazas intended to give up his U.S. citizenship.
The person holding the job of U.S. Secretary of State changed twice during these later court cases. So, the cases became known as Terrazas v. Muskie (when Edmund Muskie was Secretary) and later Terrazas v. Haig (when Alexander Haig was Secretary).
In 1986, Congress changed the Immigration and Nationality Act. They added a rule, as required by Vance v. Terrazas, that an act can only lead to losing citizenship if it was done "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality."
Even though the Terrazas ruling allowed Congress to use the "preponderance of evidence" standard, the State Department changed its policy in 1990. Now, they usually only start proceedings to take away citizenship if a person clearly states they intend to give it up. If a U.S. official learns about a possible case of someone giving up citizenship, they will simply ask the person if they intended to give up their U.S. citizenship when they did the act. If the person says no, the official will confirm that the person did not intend to give up citizenship. This means the person keeps their U.S. citizenship.
In 2005, a bill was introduced in Congress to try and change this policy. It wanted the State Department to go back to its older policy, which discouraged dual citizenship. However, this bill never became law.
