October Term 2000 · Docket 99-2071
Does federal law violate equal protection by treating mothers and fathers differently in citizenship transmission?
the sides that brought the case argue federal citizenship rules discriminate against fathers. The government claims Congress holds plenary power over naturalization.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Davis argued the case raises an equal protection question. She stated Joseph Boulais raised his son from infancy. She asserted the statute treats mothers and fathers differently.
Mr. Kneedler argued the naturalization clause grants Congress plenary power. He stated this power is inherent in national sovereignty. He asserted Congress determines which aliens gain citizenship.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if a favorable ruling would require reassessing Lehr. Ms. Davis said it would not. The Chief Justice then closed the argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether federal citizenship laws treat parents equally. Joseph Boulais raised his out-of-wedlock son from infancy. The dispute centers on the Fifth Amendment due process clause. The government asserts Congress controls who becomes a citizen. the sides that brought the case seek equal treatment under the law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-27
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the citizenship statute. They seek equal treatment for fathers under the law.
The government wants the Court to uphold the statute. It seeks to preserve Congress's plenary power over naturalization.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. They claim differential treatment of parents is unconstitutional.
The government argues the Constitution commits naturalization power to Congress. It asserts this power is inherent in national sovereignty.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if a ruling for the sides that brought the case would require reassessing the Lehr decision. Ms. Davis responded that it would not.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-27
Why it matters
The outcome defines how federal law treats parents of out-of-wedlock children. It clarifies the scope of Congress's power over citizenship. It determines whether the Fifth Amendment requires equal treatment in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 25-27
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 23-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.