Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
"Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service" centers on Tuan Anh Nguyen, a Vietnamese-born individual raised in the United States by his American father. The case highlights the complexities of U.S. citizenship laws, particularly regarding children born to unmarried parents. Under prevailing law at the time, children of unmarried American mothers automatically obtained citizenship, while those of unmarried fathers faced stricter requirements, including the establishment of paternity before the age of eighteen. After Nguyen was convicted of a crime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service deemed him deportable due to his failure to meet these citizenship criteria.
Nguyen challenged this gender-based distinction in federal court, arguing it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. In a closely contested Supreme Court decision, the majority upheld the law, asserting that gender distinctions were permissible if they furthered significant governmental objectives and were substantially related to those goals. However, the ruling sparked dissent from some justices who argued against the validity of such distinctions. This case raises important questions about the intersection of immigration law, gender equality, and the rights of individuals born out of wedlock, reflecting broader societal discussions on citizenship and equal protection under the law.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning citizenship of immigrant children
Date: Decided on January 9, 2001
Significance:The Nguyen ruling upheld a federal law giving a gender-based preference in rights to citizenship of illegitimate children born abroad when only one parent is a U.S. citizen.
Tuan Anh Nguyen, who was born out of wedlock in Vietnam, was the son of an American father and a Vietnamese mother. At the age of five, the boy was brought to the United States and raised by his father. When he was twenty-two years old, Nguyen was found guilty of sexually abusing a young child. Under U.S. law, a child born to an unmarried American mother was automatically considered a natural-born citizen, whereas a child born to an unmarried father was not a citizen unless the father proved paternity with a blood test and formally claimed paternity before the child’s eighteenth birthday. Because the father had not satisfied these requirements, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ruled that Nguyen was not a citizen and therefore deportable. Nguyen argued in federal court that the gender distinction in the law was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that Nguyen could be deported and that the gender distinction in the law was “consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.” Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that such distinctions are permissible if they serve “important governmental objectives” and employed means that are “substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” While the majority concluded that the law satisfied the two standards because of different relationships between children with their mothers and fathers, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and three other justices vigorously disagreed.
Bibliography
O’Brien, David M. Constitutional Law and Politics. 7th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.
Phelan, Margaret, and James Gillespie. Immigration Law Handbook. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.