Trop v. Dulles
Trop v. Dulles is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case decided on March 31, 1958, that addressed the constitutional implications of revoking citizenship as a punishment for desertion during wartime. The case began when Albert Trop, an Army private who received a dishonorable discharge for desertion in World War II, was denied a passport based on a federal law that stripped citizenship from wartime deserters. Trop argued that this loss of citizenship constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, established that the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" must evolve with societal standards, suggesting that punishments deemed acceptable in the past might be viewed as unconstitutional today. Ultimately, Trop's citizenship was restored, marking a significant moment in the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. This case has since influenced discussions around various forms of punishment, including the death penalty, by using the framework of "evolving standards of decency" to assess their constitutionality.
Trop v. Dulles
Identification U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Eighth Amendment
Date Decided on March 31, 1958
In Trop v. Dulles the U.S. Supreme Court changed the way in which courts decided whether a punishment was cruel and unusual.
During World War II, an Army private named Albert Trop was court-martialed for desertion. He received a dishonorable discharge and a prison sentence of three years at hard labor. In 1952, Trop applied for a passport, but his application was rejected under a federal law that revoked citizenship for wartime deserters. In 1955, he sued John Foster Dulles , the United States secretary of state, claiming that taking away his citizenship violated the Eighth Amendment because it was cruel and unusual punishment.
After losing his case, Trop took it to an appeals court, where he lost again, and finally appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court heard the case in 1957 and handed down a decision on March 31, 1958.
Prior to Trop’s case, the Court had never attempted fully to define “cruel and unusual” punishment. In this case, Chief JusticeEarl Warren stated that the meaning of the words in the amendment is not static. Instead, he wrote that the amendment should attain meaning from the “evolving standards of decency in a maturing society.” In other words, given the Court’s ruling, punishments that were considered acceptable in the past could be declared unconstitutional by current social standards. Trop’s citizenship was reinstated.
Impact
Since the Trop v. Dulles decision, the “evolving standards of decency” standard has been used to determine whether many punishments, including the death penalty, are cruel and unusual.
Bibliography
Bedau, Hugo Adam, ed. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Readings on the constitutionality of capital punishment.
Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. New York: Hyperion Press, 2003. A guide to the U.S. Constitution, including the amendments.