This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
In Nguyen, the Court approved a legitimation requirement only for fathers of non‑marital children born abroad, based on biological differences between men and women.
According to Petitioner, the residential requirements at issue have no biological basis; they create barriers for younger fathers but not younger mothers and are rooted in gender stereotypes that assume women would care for non‑marital children.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, the residential requirements are based on gender stereotypes and lack any biological justification, thus violating equal protection.
Congress intentionally made the rule tougher for fathers by balancing the duration of the parental connection, which the petitioner argues is unfair.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, congress was concerned about preventing statelessness, although the record does not support that claim.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked: “What separates a stereotype from a reality? … is it not true that if there is an illegitimate child, it is much more likely that the woman will end up caring for it than the father?”
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts stated: “The remedy for an equal protection violation is to treat everybody the same.”
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia followed up with the question: “Unless he’s a United States citizen?”
Justice Ginsburg asked whether giving fathers a one‑year advantage would be compatible with equal protection.
According to Justice BREYER, justice Breyer questioned the rationale for treating women worse than men in this context.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the only possible remedy would be to increase the burden on mothers rather than relieve fathers.
- [1] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 34
- [5] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 91db3f6878c4e514ab3e-r1-3582b5486727c853.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.