Supreme Court strikes down gender-based citizenship law

[HAB911]

A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday stuck down a law that makes birthright citizenship harder for children of unwed fathers to obtain than children of unwed mothers.

The court held in an 8-0 ruling the gender line Congress drew in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is “incompatible” with the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that all people must be treated equally under the law.

The law requires unwed fathers to have 10 total years of U.S. residency, including five years after the age of 14, to confer citizenship on a child of theirs who is born overseas. Unwed American mothers, meanwhile, are only subject to a 1-year U.S. residency requirement to give their children U.S. citizenship.

In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the equal protection infirmity in requiring a longer requirement for unwed fathers than for unwed mothers is clear. Nonetheless, the court couldn’t grant Luis Ramon Morales-Santana — the plaintiff in the case — relief.
A felon, Morales-Santana challenged the law after the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his claim that he was a U.S. citizen and couldn’t be deported because his mother was Dominican and his father was American.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/337413-supreme-court-strikes-down-gender-based-citizenship-law

[spooky3]

1. As a non-lawyer, I'm surprised it went all the way to the USSC.

The principle seems pretty straightforward.

[CincyDem]

2. As a similarly trained non-lawyer, I suspect it had to do with recourse for the plaintiff. n/t

[unblock]

3. That's my read. That the requirements should be the same m/f, but which?

Plaintiff argued the shorter requirement should apply to both; the court said until congress clarifies the law, the longer requirement should be used.