Afroyim v. Rusk
Afroyim v. Rusk is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that addresses the complexities surrounding citizenship rights and the implications of voting in foreign elections. The case centers on Beys Afroyim, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Poland, who faced the revocation of his citizenship after voting in an Israeli election. This action was deemed a violation of the Nationality Act of 1940, which stipulated that voting in a foreign election could lead to the loss of U.S. citizenship. The Supreme Court's decision in 1967, which was reached by a narrow 5-4 margin, ruled in favor of Afroyim, underscoring the idea that U.S. citizenship should be permanent and secure, as highlighted by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The ruling emphasized the rights of citizens to hold dual citizenship and established that the burden of proof to revoke citizenship rests on demonstrating clear intent, rather than mere actions such as voting abroad. This landmark case has had lasting implications for citizenship law in the United States, shaping how dual citizenship is viewed and the conditions under which citizenship can be revoked. Subsequent cases have further clarified the legal standards surrounding citizenship revocation, particularly in instances involving deception during naturalization. The case serves as a critical reference point in discussions about citizenship rights and the relationship between individuals and their national identities.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Afroyim v. Rusk
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on revocation of citizenship
Date: Decided on May 29, 1967
Significance:The Afroyim decision established that U.S. citizenship may not be revoked involuntarily for actions such as voting in a foreign country.
Beys Afroyim, a naturalized citizen from Poland, moved to Israel and voted in an Israeli election in 1951. When he attempted to renew his U.S. passport in 1960, the U.S. State Department refused his request, based on the Nationality Act of 1940, which stipulated that voting in a foreign election would result in a loss of citizenship. In an earlier decision, Perez v. Brownell (1958), the Supreme Court had upheld the law by a 5-4 vote. In a civil action against the secretary of state, nevertheless, Afroyim argued that the revocation of his citizenship was unconstitutional.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court agreed with Afroyim’s contention. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized that the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was written in order to ensure that U.S. citizenship would be “permanent and secure.” The decision had the result of encouraging the right of U.S. citizens to hold dual citizenship. In Vance v. Terrazas (1980), the Court held that the intent to give up one’s citizenship must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, not simply inferred from acts such as voting in a foreign country. According to the State Department, citizenship may be revoked for treason. In a few other cases, particularly Fedorenko v. United States (1981), the Court would uphold the government’s power to revoke citizenship if deception had been used in the naturalization process.
Bibliography
Starkey, Lauren. Becoming a U.S. Citizen: Understanding the Naturalization Process. New York: Kaplan, 2006.
Wernick, Allan. U.S. Immigration and Citizenship: Your Complete Guide. Roseville, Calif.: Prima, 2002.