Geofroy v. Riggs
Geofroy v. Riggs is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the rights of foreign nationals to inherit real estate in the United States, particularly focusing on a situation involving French citizens and their inherited property in the District of Columbia. The case arose when other descendants contested the inheritance on the basis of local laws prohibiting non-U.S. citizens from owning real property in areas of the district that were formerly part of Maryland. The French plaintiffs argued that an 1853 treaty granted them the right to inherit property where local laws allowed. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the right of these foreign nationals to inherit real estate, interpreting the District of Columbia as a state for the purposes of the treaty. This ruling established a precedent for future cases involving ambiguities in state laws regarding property rights of non-citizens, contributing to ongoing discussions about alien rights and naturalization. Geofroy v. Riggs highlights the intersection of international treaties, state law, and property rights, showcasing the evolving nature of legal interpretations concerning citizenship and ownership.
Geofroy v. Riggs
Date: February 3, 1890
Citation: 133 U.S. 258
Issue: Alien rights
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the right of French citizens to inherit property, thus expanding noncitizens’ rights to transfer property.
French citizens had inherited real estate in the District of Columbia, but other descendants challenged the bequeathal on grounds that the property was located in the portion of the district carved out of Maryland, which had a ban on the transfer of real property to people who were not U.S. citizens. The French descendants argued that an 1853 treaty allowed French nationals to inherit real estate in all states where local laws permitted it. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right of aliens to inherit real property. Justice Stephen J. Field, in the opinion for the Court, found that the District of Columbia was a state for purposes of the treaty. The Court’s ruling set a precedent in cases where the state law was ambiguous.
