United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

The Supreme Court held that citizenship as prescribed in the Fourteenth Amendment extends to U.S.-born children of foreign subjects or citizens who, at the time of the child’s birth, are permanent residents and are carrying on business in the United States. Such children acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, but this does not apply if the parents are in the United States in any diplomatic or official capacity. (Read the opinion here.)

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei

345 U.S. 206 (1953)

The Supreme Court held that the continued exclusion of an entrant noncitizen without hearing does not amount to unlawful detention, because a noncitizen seeking entry does not possess constitutional rights. The Court also held that courts may not temporarily admit a such a noncitizen into the United States pending arrangements for his departure abroad. (Read the opinion here.)

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado

466 U.S. 210 (1984)

The Supreme Court held that three factory surveys conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not constitute a seizure of the entire work force under the Fourth Amendment.  The Supreme Court also held that the individual questioning regarding citizenship of the respondents, U.S. citizens and legal residents, did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Read the opinion here.)

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

480 U.S. 421 (1987)

The Supreme Court held that to qualify for asylum, applicants have to show that they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution, and that asylum-seekers can satisfy this standard even if they do not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted if returned to their home country.  (Read the opinion here.)

Vance v. Terrazas

444 U.S. 252 (1980)

The Supreme Court held that the U.S. government must prove intent to surrender U.S. citizenship and not just the voluntary commission of a expatriating act and that the appropriate standard of proof for analyzing the citizen’s conduct would be proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court also held that it is permissible for the government to have a rebuttable presumption that the expatriating act was committed voluntarily. (Read the opinion here.)


Subscribe to RSS - CIVICS