The Full Wiki

Trop v. Dulles: Wikis

Advertisements
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trop v. Dulles
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 2, 1957
Reargued October 28–29, 1957
Decided March 31, 1958
Full case name Albert L. Trop v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, et al.
Citations 356 U.S. 86 (more)
78 S. Ct. 590; 2 L. Ed. 2d 630; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1284
Prior history Both District and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trop's claim
Holding
At least as applied in this case to a native-born citizen of the United States who did not voluntarily relinquish or abandon his citizenship or become involved in any way with a foreign nation, § 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, which provides that a citizen "shall lose his nationality" by deserting the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war, provided he is convicted thereof by court martial and as a result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the service, is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Whittaker
Concurrence Black, joined by Douglas
Concurrence Brennan
Dissent Frankfurter, joined by Burton, Clark, Harlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a federal case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to revoke the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment.

The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited precedent in the court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Case details

Albert Trop was a natural born citizen of the United States who, while serving as a private in the United States Army in 1944, deserted from an Army stockade in Casablanca, Morocco. The next day, he willingly surrendered to an Army officer and was taken back to the base, where he was subsequently court-martialed, found guilty, and sentenced to three years at hard labor, forfeiture of pay, and a dishonorable discharge.

In 1952, Trop applied for a passport, which was denied because the Nationality Act of 1940 provided that members of the armed forces of the United States who deserted would lose their citizenship. (A 1944 amendment modified the Act such that a deserter would lose his citizenship only if on these grounds, he had been dishonorably discharged or dismissed from the military).

Trop filed suit in federal courts seeking declaratory judgment that he was a U.S. citizen.

The district court ruled in favor of the government and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the decision of the district court.

The Supreme Court reversed. In the decision of the court written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court cited Perez v. Brownell, the Court had held that citizenship could be divested in the exercise of the foreign affairs power. However, "denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment," as this is "the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society".

In the dissent, Justice Felix Frankfurter noted that desertion from the military can be punished by the death penalty, leading him to ask, "Is constitutional dialectic so empty of reason that it can be seriously urged that loss of citizenship is a fate worse than death?"

See also

External links

Advertisements

Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

Trop v. Dulles
Syllabus
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a federal court case in the United States that was filed in 1955, and finally decided by the Supreme Court in 1958. The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to cancel the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment.Excerpted from Trop v. Dulles on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinions
Black
Brennan
Dissenting Opinion
Frankfurter
Wikipedia-logo.png
Wikipedia article
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
356 U.S. 86
Trop v. Dulles
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 70 Argued: May 2, 1957 --- Decided: March 31, 1958


At least as applied in this case to a native-born citizen of the United States who did not voluntarily relinquish or abandon his citizenship or become involved in any way with a foreign nation, § 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, which provides that a citizen "shall lose his nationality" by

deserting the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war, provided he is convicted thereof by court martial and as a result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the service,

is unconstitutional. Pp. 87-114.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in an Opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, concluded that:

1. Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government, and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. Pp. 91-93.

2. Even if citizenship could be divested in the exercise of some governmental power, § 401(g) violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is penal in nature and prescribes a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Pp. 93-104.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, in an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurred in the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE and expressed the view that, even if citizenship could be involuntarily divested, the power to denationalize may not be placed in the hands of military authorities. Pp. 104-105.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, while agreeing with the Court, in Perez v. Brownell, ante, p. 44, that there is no constitutional infirmity in § 401(e) which expatriates the citizen who votes in a foreign political election, concluded in this case that § 401(g) lies beyond the power of Congress to enact. Pp. 105-114. [p87]

For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, joined by MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see post, p. 114.


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message