October Term 2016 · Docket 16-309
Does a false statement in a naturalization application require proof of materiality for denaturalization?
The dispute centers on whether the government must prove a false statement materially affected the naturalization decision to strip citizenship.
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
Mr. Landau argued Section 1425(a) authorizes stripping citizenship if procured contrary to law.
Mr. Parker stated naturalization fundamentally changes the relationship between government and individual.
Justice Alito questioned whether being a Serb in Bosnia guarantees asylum rights.
Justice Ginsburg asked how good moral character interacts with immaterial lies in applications.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 38-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 38-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 30-30 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 30-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Elma Maslenjak faces denaturalization for false statements in her application. The government argues any lie justifies revocation. Maslenjak argues only material lies matter.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 26, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 40-42
What each side wants
The government wants to revoke Maslenjak's citizenship based on any false statement.
Maslenjak wants to keep her citizenship because the lies were immaterial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
What each side says
The government argues Section 1425(a) allows revocation for any lie, regardless of impact.
Maslenjak argues the law requires proof that the lie materially influenced the decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if every Serb in Bosnia is entitled to asylum.
Justice Sotomayor noted that outcomes are unpredictable and only possibilities exist now.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 38-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 38-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 30-30 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 30-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
Why it matters
This case defines the standard for revoking citizenship. It determines how strictly courts scrutinize naturalization applications. It affects the stability of citizenship for millions of immigrants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
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 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 38-6 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 38-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 30-30 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 30-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 44-48 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 44-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 44-50
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 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 52-18 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 52-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 20-28
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.