In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld immigration laws which make it much more difficult for foreign-born individuals with American fathers to obtain U.S. citizenship than for foreign-born individuals whose mothers are American. The National Women’s Law Center had argued that sexual distinction violated the guarantee of equal protection before the law.
For children born of mothers who are American citizens, citizenship is all but automatic. For a child born outside the United States whose father is an American citizen, but whose mother is not, however, the barrier is much higher. Specifically, somebody must begin a formal action to prove paternity before the child reaches his or her 18th birthday.
The case before the court involved Tuan Ahn Nguyen. Nguyen was born in Vietnam to an American serviceman and a Vietnamese mother. Nguyen’s father, Joseph Boulais, obtained custody of the Nguyen and brought him back to live in the United States at the end of the Vietnam War. Boulais failed, however, to establish legal paternity and and never attempted to have his son made a naturalized citizen.
In the early 1990s, Nguyen plead guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and was sentenced to 16 years in jail. In 1995, the Immigration and Naturalization Service decided to deport Nguyen back to Vietnam. Boulais went to court and DNA evidence proved that he was indeed Ngueyn’s father, but the INS ruled that since Boulais failed to establish legal paternity before his son’s 18th birthday that the results of the DNA test were irrelevant.
In upholding the INS rules, the Supreme Court did little more than argue on behalf of age-old sexual stereotypes. According to the majority opinion,
A gender-based classification withstands equal protection scrutiny if it serves important governmental objectives and the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533. Congress’ decision to impose different requirements on unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers is based on the significant difference between their respective relationships to the potential citizen at the time of birth…
Writing for the dissenters was Sandra Day O’Connor who wrote,
Under the present law, the statute on its face accords different treatment to a mother who is by nature present at birth and a father who is by choice present at birth even though those two individuals are similarly situated with respect to the “opportunity” for a relationship. The mother can transmit her citizenship at birth, but the father cannot do so in the absence of at least one other affirmative act. The different statutory treatment is solely on account of the sex of the similarly situated individuals. This type of treatment is patently inconsistent with the promise of equal protection of laws.
Source:
Parent’s Sex May Be Factor in Citizenship, Court Rules. Charles Lane, The Washington Post, June 12, 2001.
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.