Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the gender-based distinctions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that governed the transmission of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad to unwed parents. The INA imposed a longer physical presence requirement on U.S.-citizen fathers than on unwed mothers for transmitting citizenship, a distinction challenged by Morales-Santana, who sought citizenship through his father. The Second Circuit found the gender-based discrepancy unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court applied heightened scrutiny to the gender-based classifications and ruled that the Government's justifications for the distinction relied on outdated gender stereotypes and failed to serve important governmental objectives. The Court determined that a uniform policy, free from gender discrimination, must be established by Congress. Consequently, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion, emphasizing the incompatibility of the gender distinction with contemporary equal protection standards. The ruling underscored the need for legislative action to address the unconstitutional provisions, with the Court unable to grant the specific relief sought by Morales-Santana.
Legal Issues Addressed
Congressional Intent and Remedial Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court concluded that any remedy for the unconstitutional gender-based distinctions should focus on congressional intent, suggesting that Congress would likely eliminate the exception rather than expand it.
Reasoning: The longer physical-presence requirement reflects Congress's intention to prioritize actual residence over descent for citizenship. Extending benefits under the statute could disrupt the legislative framework, particularly regarding the treatment of children based on their parents' marital status, which Congress likely did not intend.
Equal Protection Clause and Gender-Based Distinctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court found that the gender-based distinctions in the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding the transmission of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court upheld the Second Circuit's decision, emphasizing that the gender distinction in the law is incompatible with equal protection principles and that Morales-Santana has standing to assert his father's rights due to their close relationship.
Heightened Scrutiny for Gender-Based Classificationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court applied heightened scrutiny to the gender-based classifications in §1409, determining that the Government failed to provide a compelling justification for the differential treatment of unwed mothers and fathers.
Reasoning: The justifications offered for the gender-based distinctions in §1409 fail to withstand heightened scrutiny. The Government argues that the law is designed to ensure a child's strong connection to the U.S. by treating unwed citizen mothers differently from unwed citizen fathers; however, this rationale relies on outdated stereotypes about paternal engagement.
Unwed Parent Citizenship Transmission Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court found that the physical presence requirement for unwed fathers in the transmission of citizenship was discriminatory when compared to the requirement for unwed mothers, and that Congress must establish a uniform policy.
Reasoning: Instead, Congress must establish a uniform policy that does not discriminate based on gender. The Court concludes that the current requirement of §1401(a)(7) should apply to children of unwed U.S.-citizen mothers moving forward.