## Facts

- Laurence J. Terrazas was born in the United States in 1947 and held dual U.S. and Mexican citizenship at birth.
- While studying at a Mexican university in 1970, Terrazas applied for a certificate of Mexican nationality.
- As part of that application, Terrazas signed a statement swearing allegiance to Mexico and expressly renouncing U.S. citizenship and loyalty to the United States.
- The U.S. Department of State issued a certificate of loss of nationality, and the State Department’s Board of Appellate Review affirmed the administrative determination.
- Terrazas filed suit in federal court seeking a declaration that he remained a U.S. citizen.
- The district court held that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Terrazas knowingly and voluntarily took a foreign oath under INA § 349(a)(2) and thereby voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship; judgment was entered for the government.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, ruling that the Constitution required proof of intent to relinquish citizenship by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence and that Congress could not set a lesser standard in INA § 349(c).

## Issues

1. Whether loss of U.S. citizenship may be based solely on the voluntary commission of a statutory expatriating act, or instead requires proof of intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
2. Whether the Constitution requires a heightened evidentiary standard to prove intent to relinquish citizenship, or permits Congress to require proof by a preponderance of the evidence in civil expatriation proceedings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the government must prove both (1) voluntary commission of a statutory expatriating act and (2) intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
- The Court held that Congress may constitutionally require proof of loss of nationality by a preponderance of the evidence under INA § 349(c).
- The Court rejected any rule treating performance of a statutory expatriating act as conclusive proof of intent; intent may be inferred from conduct but remains a required factual finding.
- The judgment below was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for application of the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Citizenship may not be taken away without the citizen’s voluntary assent; expatriation requires intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
- A statutory expatriating act listed by Congress is not, by itself, conclusive evidence of the constitutionally required intent to relinquish citizenship.
- Intent to relinquish citizenship may be established by reasonable inference from words and conduct, including conduct surrounding a foreign oath.
- Expatriation proceedings are civil; the Constitution permits Congress to set a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for proving the required elements, including intent.
- Statutory presumptions regarding voluntariness may be used so long as the trier of fact ultimately finds voluntary action and intent to relinquish citizenship under the governing standard of proof.

## Conclusion

The Court required proof that a citizen intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship in addition to voluntarily committing a statutory expatriating act, but upheld Congress’s choice of a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for proving expatriation and allowed intent to be inferred from the citizen’s conduct rather than presumed conclusively from the act alone.


Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)