Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service — O'Connor, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice O’Connor’s dissent argues that the citizenship statute’s different requirements for unmarried citizen fathers and mothers violate equal protection because the Government failed to provide an exceedingly persuasive justification and failed to show a substantial relationship between the sex-based classification and important governmental objectives. She contends that the majority improperly hypothesized purposes, relied on overbroad generalizations, discounted sex-neutral alternatives, and gave insufficient weight to the availability of independent proof of paternity. She would also have severed the offending provision and rejected heightened deference based on the immigration power because the case concerns citizenship at birth rather than admission of aliens. Justice Scalia, concurring, joined by Justice Thomas, agreed to reach and reject the equal-protection claim because he believed the Court lacked authority to confer citizenship outside Congress’s prescribed terms.