Supreme Court Decides Sessions v. Morales-Santana

by Faegre Baker Daniels

Faegre Baker Daniels

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191, in which it held that an exception to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., that provides a benefit to children of unwed, non-U.S. citizen mothers but not unwed, non-U.S. citizen fathers violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., establishes a general method for a child born abroad to become a U.S. citizen at birth when one parent is a U.S. citizen who was physically present in the U.S. for a period of years and the other is not. The Act also creates an exception and shortens the durational requirement where the child’s mother is an unmarried U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c).

Respondent Luis Ramón Morales-Santana moved to the U.S. at age 13. To avoid deportation, he argued that he was a U.S. citizen because his father, though not satisfying the terms of the Act’s general rule, resided in the U.S. long enough to meet the duration requirement of the Act’s exception. The Government rejected Morales-Santana’s argument and declined to recognize him as a U.S. citizen because the Act’s exception, as written, applies only to unwed mothers.

After the immigration judge rejected Morale-Santana’s claim to citizenship in 2000, Morales-Santana moved to reopen the proceedings in 2010 and argued that the Government’s rejection of his citizenship claim violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Morales-Santana’s motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.

The United States Supreme Court first confirmed that Morales-Santana had standing to pursue the equal-protection claim on behalf of his father’s right to equal treatment under the Act because Morales-Santana had a close relationship with his father and the father’s prior death prevented the father from pursuing the claims himself. 

Turning to the merits of Morales-Santana’s equal-protection claim, the Court found that the Act’s exception drew a gender-based classification and thus deserved heightened scrutiny. It required the Government to show that the statute’s classification served “important [presently existing] governmental objectives” and was “substantially related” to achieving those objectives.

The Court then rejected both of the “important objectives” that the Government advanced. First, the Court concluded that the Government’s objective of “ensur[ing] that a child born abroad has a connection to the [U.S.] of sufficient strength to warrant conferral of citizenship at birth,” was impermissibly based on a discriminatory gender-based characterization and that the statute was not substantially related to achieving that objective. It also dismissed as unsupported by any evidence the Government’s argument that the statute was intended “to reduce the risk that a foreign-born child of a U. S. citizen would be born stateless,” and it confirmed that the Government may not support a gender-based classification with a post hoc, theoretical purpose. The Court recognized that there previously may have been justifications for the Act’s gender-based classification, but it reaffirmed that laws, like the Act’s exception, grounded in “the obsolescing view that unwed fathers are invariably less qualified and entitled than mothers to take responsibility for nonmarital children” serve “no important governmental interest.” Concluding that the Government had not supplied an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the Act’s classification, the Court held that the Act’s gender-based exception violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court then turned to fashioning relief. It confirmed that where a statute is found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, a court may ensure equal treatment by either nullifying the statute and ordering that it not apply to any class, or extending the statute’s benefits to those originally deprived of them. It instructed that the form of relief depends on the legislature’s intent and that, ordinarily, extension is the appropriate remedy. It clarified, however, that where, as here, that relief would broaden the application of an exception to a general rule, courts should assess (a) “the intensity of commitment” to the main rule, rather than the exception, and (b) “the degree of potential disruption of the statutory scheme that would occur by extension as opposed to abrogation.” Finding that the Act’s general rule is important and the risk that extension of the Act’s exception would disrupt the Act’s scheme was high, the Court struck, rather than extended, the Act’s exception. 

The Court thus affirmed in part and reversed in part the Second Circuit’s opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings. It directed that “[g]oing forward, Congress may address the issue and settle on a uniform prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender” and that, in the interim, the Act’s general requirements would “apply, prospectively, to children born to unwed U. S.-citizen mothers.”

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring in the judgment in part, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Download Opinion of the Court

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Faegre Baker Daniels | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Faegre Baker Daniels

Faegre Baker Daniels on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.