Nguyen v. INS

Week 12 — Sex Discrimination

Facts

  • 8 U.S.C. § 1409 governed acquisition of citizenship for children born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent:
    • If the U.S. citizen parent was the mother, the child was automatically a citizen.
    • If the U.S. citizen parent was the father, the child had to comply with additional procedural steps.
  • Nguyen, a child of a U.S. citizen father, challenged the statute under the Equal Protection guarantee.

Issue

Whether the sex-based distinction in § 1409 — automatic citizenship through mothers, but procedural hurdles through fathers — survives intermediate scrutiny.

Holding

Yes. The classification was upheld.

Reasoning

  • Men and women are not similarly situated with regard to the birth of children.
  • Government interests:
    1. Assuring a biological parent–child relationship exists (inherently easier to verify with women, who give birth).
    2. Ensuring the opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship (also inherently easier for women given the birth event).
  • Because women actually give birth and men don't, the classification fit a real biological difference.
  • Gender classifications may withstand intermediate scrutiny if they are designed pursuant to biological differences.

Notes

  • Nguyen sits alongside Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County and Rostker v. Goldberg in the "not similarly situated due to biological differences" line of cases.
  • Opposite outcome — Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017): statute had the purpose of ensuring parents absorbed "American values" they could pass onto their kids before being able to transfer citizenship; women had to be in U.S. for 1 year, men for 5 years. Unlike Nguyen, there was no inherent biological difference supporting the gender classification for the established purpose. Classification unconstitutional.