Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Strike Down Gender Difference in Citizenship Law
A drug dealer seeking to be declared an American citizen appears likely to fail in his Supreme Court argument that gender differences in U.S. immigration law are unconstitutional.
Ruben Flores-Villar claims he stands to be deported under an unconstitutional double standard, according to stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and the Washington Post. But several justices appeared reluctant to issue an equal-protection ruling that would for the first time require the United States to grant citizenship to someone born outside the United States.
A ruling for Flores-Villar, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, would involve the court “in a highly intrusive exercise of the congressional power.”
Flores-Villar was born in Mexico to a Mexican mother but raised in San Diego by his American father. He was denied citizenship under a law that required unmarried citizen fathers to have lived in the United States at least 10 years, at least five of them after the age of 14. Flores-Villar’s father was only 16 when his son was born. (The law has since been revised to shorten the residency period.)
But it is easier for mothers to pass on citizenship. For unmarried mothers, the requirement is for a year of U.S. residency after the birth of a child.
The case is Flores-Villar v. United States. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate.
Story updated at 12:11 p.m. to clarify that the justices appeared reluctant to issue a ruling would be the first to grant citizenship based on an unconstitutional statute.
