# Nguyen v. INS

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Nguyen_v._INS
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Nguyen_v._INS.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._INS
> Source revision: 1351342772
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

2001 United States Supreme Court case

Nguyen v. INS Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 9, 2001 Decided June 11, 2001 Full case name Tuan Anh Nguyen and Joseph Boulais v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Docket no. 99-2071 Citations 533 U.S. 53 (more) 121 S. Ct. 2053; 150 L. Ed. 2d 115 Case history Prior Appeal from BIA rejected, 208 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1305 (2000) Subsequent Petition for writ of habeas corpus rejected, 400 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2005) Holding A law providing narrower standards for United States citizenship for a child born abroad out of wedlock to an American father, as opposed to an American mother, was justified by important government interests and did not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas Concurrence Scalia, joined by Thomas Dissent O'Connor, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. V; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sec. 309 (8 U.S.C. § 1409)

***Nguyen v. INS***, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a [United States Supreme Court](/source/United_States_Supreme_Court) case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to [U.S. citizenship at birth](/source/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States) for children born outside the United States, [out of wedlock](/source/Illegitimacy), 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.[1][2]

## Background

Section 309 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952](/source/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952) as amended (codified as section 1409 of [Title 8 of the United States Code](/source/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code)) deals with U.S. citizenship for children born outside the U.S., out of wedlock, to an American parent. If a child is born abroad, out of wedlock, to an American mother, the child automatically acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided the mother had "previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year". An illegitimate foreign-born child of an American father and an alien mother, on the other hand, is recognized as a U.S. citizen only if a much more complex and stringent set of conditions are met: the father's paternity must be convincingly established prior to the child's 18th birthday, and the father must also agree in writing to provide financial support to the child until he or she reaches age 18.[3]

Tuan Anh Nguyen was born in [Vietnam](/source/Vietnam) to an American father and a Vietnamese mother who were not married. He moved to the United States with his father and became a legal [permanent resident](/source/Permanent_resident) of the U.S. at age six, but his father did not attempt to establish any claim of U.S. citizenship for the boy. At age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty to sexual assault; this made him subject to [deportation](/source/Deportation) based on his criminal record.[4]

Nguyen's father obtained evidence of parentage in an attempt to have his son recognized as a U.S. citizen, but his efforts were rejected by the [Immigration and Naturalization Service](/source/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service) (INS) because [8 U.S.C.](/source/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 1409](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1409) required any such evidence to have been presented before the child's 18th birthday. Nguyen—together with his father—mounted a court challenge to the law, claiming that 8 U.S.C. § 1409 was unconstitutionally discriminatory because it imposed stricter requirements for a foreign-born illegitimate child of an American father than would have applied if his American parent had been his mother.[5]

## Holding

The Supreme Court rejected Nguyen's arguments and upheld the law denying him citizenship, [holding](/source/Holding_(law)) by a 5–4 majority that 8 U.S.C. § 1409 was consistent with the equal protection principle, applied through the [Due Process Clause](/source/Due_Process_Clause) of the [Fifth Amendment to the Constitution](/source/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). In the opinion of the Court (written by Associate Justice [Anthony Kennedy](/source/Anthony_Kennedy)), the Court ruled that although the statute was discriminatory, "it serve[d] important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed [were] substantially related to the achievement of those objectives".[1] The Court found that Congress' decision to impose different requirements on unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers was "based on the significant difference between their respective relationships to the potential citizen at the time of birth".[6][7] First, the Court noted that whereas a mother's biological relationship to her child is easily verified and documented, the same cannot be said of the father.[8] Second, the Court concluded that the law was designed "to ensure that the child and citizen parent have some demonstrated opportunity to develop... a relationship... that consists of the real, everyday ties that provide a connection between child and citizen parent and, in turn, the United States"—something that was inherent in the case of an American mother and her child, but not inevitable in the case of a single father.[9]

Even though Nguyen's father had submitted [DNA](/source/DNA) evidence proving the father-son relationship, the Court noted that "scientific proof of biological paternity does nothing, by itself, to ensure contact between father and child during the child's minority".[10] In the end, the Court held that Congress was "well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit this country to embracing a child as a citizen".[10]

A concurring opinion by Associate Justices [Antonin Scalia](/source/Antonin_Scalia) and [Clarence Thomas](/source/Clarence_Thomas) proposed that the Supreme Court simply did not have the power of "conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress".[11] The dissent (written by Associate Justice [Sandra Day O'Connor](/source/Sandra_Day_O'Connor)) concluded that the INS "[had] not shown an exceedingly persuasive justification for the sex-based classification... because it [had] failed to establish at least that the classification substantially relate[d] to the achievement of important government objectives", and on that basis the minority would have ruled in Nguyen's favor.[12]

An earlier case, *[Miller v. Albright](/source/Miller_v._Albright)*, [523](/source/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_523) [U.S.](/source/United_States_Reports) [420](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/420/) (1998), suggested a similar conclusion to that given in *Nguyen v. INS*, but had failed to support it by a clear majority.[13]

## Aftermath

After the Supreme Court decision, the INS attempted to deport Nguyen, but was unsuccessful because of a Vietnamese government policy barring the repatriation of convicts from the United States.[14][15]

Nguyen and his father sought to reopen the deportation proceedings, and when this effort was unsuccessful, appealed to the courts again, claiming that the refusal by the [Board of Immigration Appeals](/source/Board_of_Immigration_Appeals) to reopen Nguyen's case deprived him of [due process of law](/source/Due_process_of_law) and denied the father's right to enjoy his son's companionship. This appeal was rejected by the [Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals](/source/Fifth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals) in 2005.[16]

## References

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Nguyen_at_60-61_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Nguyen_at_60-61_1-1) *Nguyen v. INS*, [533](/source/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_533) [U.S.](/source/United_States_Reports) [53, 60–61](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/53/#60–61).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-2)** "Parent's Sex May Be Factor in Citizenship, Court Rules; Justices Uphold Law Favoring U.S. Mothers of Out-of-Wedlock Children". *Washington Post*. June 12, 2001. The government may make it more difficult for children born out of wedlock overseas to U.S. citizen fathers to claim citizenship than for the children of American mothers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, rejecting a claim that the different treatment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 59.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-4)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 57.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-5)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 57–58.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-6)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 62.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-7)** *Washington Post* (June 12, 2001). "By a vote of 5 to 4, the court held that, in adopting different rules depending on whether the mother or father was a U.S. citizen, Congress was attempting to ensure that such children have a clear biological and social attachment to their U.S. citizen parent, and therefore was engaging in a constitutionally acceptable form of gender discrimination."

1. **[^](#cite_ref-8)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 64.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-9)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 64–65.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Nguyen_at_67_10-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Nguyen_at_67_10-1) *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 67.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-11)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 73.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-12)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 74ff.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-13)** *Nguyen*, 533 U.S. at 58.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-14)** Tomizuka, Lica (Summer 2002). "The Supreme Court's Blind Pursuit of Outdated Definitions of Familial Relationships in Upholding the Constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1409 in Nguyen v. INS". *Law and Inequality*. **20**: 275 n24.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-15)** ["Sex Bias in Citizenship Law Challenged"](http://www.msmagazine.com/news/printnews.asp?id=6177). [Ms. Magazine](/source/Ms._Magazine). January 17, 2001. Vietnam refused to accept the return of Nguyen and he now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in a U.S. deportation facility.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-16)** *Nguyen v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement*, 400 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2005).

## External links

- Text of *Nguyen v. INS*, [533](/source/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_533) [U.S.](/source/United_States_Reports) 53 (2001) is available from: [Internet Archive (docket files)](https://archive.org/details/micro_IA40385014_0385) [Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/53/) [Library of Congress](http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep533/usrep533053/usrep533053.pdf) [Oyez (oral argument audio)](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-2071)

v t e United States Fifth Amendment case law v t e United States Fifth Amendment criminal procedure case law Grand Jury Clause Hurtado v. California (1884) Ex parte Bain (1887) Wong Wing v. United States (1896) Maxwell v. Dow (1900) United States v. Moreland (1922) Beck v. Washington (1962) United States v. Cotton (2002) Double Jeopardy Clause Meaning of "same offense" Blockburger v. United States (1932) Grady v. Corbin (1990) United States v. Felix (1992) United States v. Dixon (1993) After acquittal United States v. Randenbush (1834) Ball v. United States (1896) Burton v. United States (1906) Fong Foo v. United States (1962) Ashe v. Swenson (1970) Burks v. United States (1978) Evans v. Michigan (2013) Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (2016) McElrath v. Georgia (2024) After conviction United States v. Wilson (1833) Ludwig v. Massachusetts (1976) Grady v. Corbin (1990) United States v. Felix (1992) United States v. Dixon (1993) Smith v. United States (2023) After mistrial United States v. Perez (1824) United States v. Jorn (1971) United States v. Dinitz (1976) Oregon v. Kennedy (1982) Blueford v. Arkansas (2012) Multiple punishment Blockburger v. United States (1932) Dual sovereignty doctrine United States v. Lanza (1922) Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) Waller v. Florida (1970) United States v. Wheeler (1978) Heath v. Alabama (1985) United States v. Lara (2004) Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016) Gamble v. United States (2019) Denezpi v. United States (2022) Other Ex parte Bigelow (1885) Palko v. Connecticut (1937) Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947) North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) Benton v. Maryland (1969) Self-Incrimination Clause United States v. Sullivan (1927) Curcio v. United States (1957) Griffin v. California (1965) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Boulden v. Holman (1969) Williams v. Florida (1970) Michigan v. Tucker (1974) Edwards v. Arizona (1981) Oregon v. Elstad (1985) Doe v. United States (1988) Illinois v. Perkins (1990) McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) Mitchell v. United States (1999) United States v. Hubbell (2000) Dickerson v. United States (2000) Chavez v. Martinez (2003) Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004) Missouri v. Seibert (2004) United States v. Patane (2004) Corley v. United States (2009) Florida v. Powell (2010) Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) J. D. B. v. North Carolina (2011) Bobby v. Dixon (2011) Howes v. Fields (2012) Salinas v. Texas (2013) Vega v. Tekoh (2022) Due Process Clause Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Adair v. United States (1908) Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) Nichols v. Coolidge (1927) Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. (1935) United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) Schneider v. Rusk (1964) Rogers v. Bellei (1971) Richardson v. Davis (1972) Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) Morton v. Mancari (1974) Schlesinger v. Ballard (1975) Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) Hills v. Gautreaux (1976) Mathews v. Diaz (1976) Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (1976) Washington v. Davis (1976) Mathews v. Lucas (1976) Califano v. Goldfarb (1977) Califano v. Webster (1977) United States v. Antelope (1977) Fiallo v. Bell (1977) Califano v. Torres (1978) Vance v. Bradley (1979) Davis v. Passman (1979) Califano v. Westcott (1979) Harris v. Rosario (1980) Harris v. McRae (1980) Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) Heckler v. Mathews (1984) Lyng v. Castillo (1986) Bowen v. Gilliard (1987) Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (1990) Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) Miller v. Albright (1998) Nguyen v. INS (2001) Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) Flores-Villar v. United States (2011) United States v. Windsor (2013) Kerry v. Din (2015) Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017) Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020) United States v. Vaello Madero (2022) Department of State v. Muñoz (2024) Associated Press v. Budowich (2025) Takings Clause Barron v. Baltimore (1833) Kohl v. United States (1875) United States v. Lawton (1884) Cole v. City of La Grange (1885) Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. (1885) Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States (1893) Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897) Peabody v. United States (1913) United States v. Cress (1917) Block v. Hirsh (1921) Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States (1923) Rindge Company v. County of Los Angeles (1923) Leonard v. Earle (1929) Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935) United States v. General Motors Corp. (1945) United States v. Causby (1946) Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States (1949) United States v. Pewee Coal Co. (1951) Berman v. Parker (1954) Nelson v. City of New York (1956) United States v. Dow (1958) Armstrong v. United States (1960) Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979) Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith (1980) Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) Ruckelshaus v. Montanato Company (1984) Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985) United States v. Riverside Bayview (1985) Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis (1987) Hodel v. Irving (1987) First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County (1987) Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1990) Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) Babbitt v. Youpee (1997) Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (1998) Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998) Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco (2005) Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010) Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (2012) Horne v. Department of Agriculture I (2013) Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) Horne v. Department of Agriculture II (2015) Murr v. Wisconsin (2017) Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (2019) Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023) Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) DeVillier v. Texas (2024) Pung v. Isabella County (2026)

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Nguyen v. INS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._INS) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._INS?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.