Trop v. Dulles
Trop v. Dulles | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | Both District and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trop's claim |
Holding | |
At least as applied in this case to a native-born citizen of the United States who did not voluntarily relinquish or abandon his citizenship or become involved in any way with a foreign nation, § 401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, which provides that a citizen "shall lose his nationality" by deserting the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war, provided he is convicted thereof by court martial and as a result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the service, is unconstitutional. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Whittaker |
Concurrence | Black, joined by Douglas |
Concurrence | Brennan |
Dissent | Frankfurter, joined by Burton, Clark, Harlan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VIII |
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.
Background
Albert Trop was a
In 1952, Trop applied for a
Trop filed
The
Representation
- Osmond K. Fraenkelargued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner
- Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for respondents on the original argument, and Solicitor General Rankin on the reargument; with them on the briefs were Warren Olney, III (then Assistant Attorney General) and J. F. Bishop; Beatrice Rosenberg was also with them on the brief on the re-argument
Decision
The Supreme Court reversed. In the decision, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court cited Perez v. Brownell, the Court had held that citizenship could be divested in the exercise of the foreign affairs power. However, "denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment," describing it as "a form of punishment more primitive than torture" as it inflicts the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society." Further, the Court declared that the Eighth Amendment's meaning of cruel and unusual must change over time and "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society".
Dissenting, Justice
See also
External links
- Works related to Trop v. Dulles at Wikisource
- Text of Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)