Girouard v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued March 4, 1946 Decided April 22, 1946 | |
Full case name | James Girouard v. United States |
Citations | 328 U.S. 61 ( more ) 66 S. Ct. 826; 90 L. Ed. 1084; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2499 |
Holding | |
Religious pacifism is not a reason to deny a foreigner citizenship. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Douglas, joined by Black, Murphy, Rutledge, Burton |
Dissent | Stone, joined by Reed, Frankfurter |
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
War Powers Act of 1941, The Nationality Act of 1940 | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
United States v. Schwimmer (1929) |
Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to fight for the defense of the United States. The case questioned a precedent set by United States v. Schwimmer in 1929 that denied an applicant entry to the United States because of her pacifist stance. Girouard v. United States overturned that precedent by voting in favor of James Girouard's religious freedom through allowing him to uphold his Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone died the day of the decision. [1] [2]
James Girouard was a Canadian citizen who applied to become an American citizen. When asked if he would fight for the U.S., he responded "No, I am a Seventh-day Adventist." Girouard stated that he believed in the democratic ideal, but asserted that he was an uncompromising pacifist. The response was similar to Rosika Schwimmer's ( United States v. Schwimmer ) who said, "My cosmic consciousness of belonging to the human family is shared by all those who believe that all human beings are the children of God."
The Court held 5–3 that citizenship should be allowed. The majority stated that the oath aliens are required to take to become citizens does not require them to bear arms in defense of the United States. [3] The court also drew support from the War Powers Act of 1941, enacted by Congress in 1942, which relaxed naturalization requirements for aliens who served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II, including those who served in non-combatant roles. The court explained that serving in a combatant role is not the only way to uphold and defend the US Constitution and that Girouard should not be denied citizenship because of his religious pacifism.
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone argued against granting citizenship in his dissent, joined by Justices Reed and Frankfurter. Stone cited the Nationality Act of 1940 and explained that it was the method that Congress chose for determining whether aliens met the requirements to become citizens.[ citation needed ]
He argued that the War Powers Act of 1942 did not apply in the case because the aliens covered under the 1942 act had already served in the armed forces in defense of the United States, and it was not intended to include those who had not previously rendered military service to the United States.[ citation needed ]
Stone became ill immediately after reading (or, according to one author, while reading [4] ) his dissenting opinion in open court. The Court went into an immediate recess, and medical assistance was summoned. Stone died later that day at his home in Washington, D.C. [5]
Girouard v. United States overturned three previous Supreme Court decisions. They were:
Harlan Fiske Stone was an American attorney and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1925 to 1941 and then as the 12th chief justice of the United States from 1941 until his death in 1946. He also served as the U.S. Attorney General from 1924 to 1925 under President Calvin Coolidge, with whom he had attended Amherst College as a young man. His most famous dictum was: "Courts are not the only agency of government that must be assumed to have capacity to govern."
Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States. In 1919, Thind filed a petition for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" to become United States citizens by naturalization.
Bhagat Singh Thind was an Indian American writer and lecturer on spirituality who served in the United States Army during World War I and was involved in a Supreme Court case over the right of Indian people to obtain United States citizenship.
The Oath of Allegiance of the United States is the official oath of allegiance that must be taken and subscribed by every immigrant who wishes to become a United States citizen.
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because one or both of their parents is a US citizen. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.
The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.
Douglas Clyde Macintosh (1877–1948) was a Canadian theologian.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."
In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.
Dow v. United States, 226 F. 145, is a United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, case in which a Syrian immigrant, George Dow, appealed two lower court decisions denying his application for naturalization as a United States citizen. Following the lower court decisions in Ex Parte Dow (1914) and In re Dow (1914), Dow v. United States resulted in the Circuit Court's affirmation of the petitioner's right to naturalize based, in the words of Circuit Judge Woods, on "the generally received opinion. .. that the inhabitants of a portion of Asia, including Syria, [are] to be classed as white persons".
The Expatriation Act of 1907 was an act of the 59th United States Congress concerning retention and relinquishment of United States nationality by married women and Americans residing abroad. It effectively functioned as Congressional endorsement of the various ad hoc rulings on loss of United States nationality that had been made by the State Department since the enactment of the Expatriation Act of 1868. Some sections of it were repealed by other acts in the early 1920s; those sections which remained were codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 6–17, but those too were repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940 when the question of dual citizenship arose.
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving denaturalization. By a 5–3 vote, the justices rejected the federal government's attempt to denaturalize William Schneiderman, a self-avowed communist. The Court held that "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" proof was required to revoke citizenship; it determined that there was insufficient evidence that Schneiderman was not "attached to the principles of the Constitution" as required by federal law.