The bill that seeks to prohibit dual citizenship for American citizens directly conflicts with precedents from the United States Supreme Court. The proposal calls for the automatic loss of American citizenship. for those who retain another nationality and do not make a formal choice within one year.
Introduced by Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, the measure establishes that U.S. citizens "must pledge exclusive loyalty to the United States." If an individual does not declare the renunciation of one of their nationalities, they will automatically lose their American citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions protect the citizen.
The proposal contradicts two historical precedents of the Supreme Court.
In the first case, Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)The court analyzed the situation of Beys Afroyim, of Polish origin, naturalized as an American citizen in 1926. In 1950, he moved to Israel and, the following year, voted in an Israeli legislative election. The State Department refused to renew his passport, claiming that he had lost his American citizenship based on Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, which provided for the automatic loss of citizenship upon voting in foreign elections.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the state cannot revoke the citizenship of an American citizen without their voluntary consent. This decision became the new legal standard, protecting nationality against involuntary loss.
This understanding was reaffirmed in Vance v. Terrazas (1980)The case involved Laurence Terrazas, born in the United States and also a Mexican citizen by paternal origin. In 1970, when applying for a Mexican citizenship certificate, Terrazas signed an oath of allegiance to Mexico.
The State Department understood that he had abandoned his U.S. citizenship. However, the Supreme Court reinforced that it is not enough to perform a formal act of loyalty to another country: it is necessary to prove, even indirectly, the clear intention to abandon American citizenship.
The court allowed the use of the preponderance of evidence criterion to ascertain this intent, provided that voluntary consent is proven. In both cases, the Court made it clear that the loss of citizenship requires a conscious and unequivocal expression of intent on the part of the citizen.
Automation cannot replace the will of the citizen.
to the lawyer Salvatore ApriglianoBernie Moreno's project violates fundamental constitutional principles.
“In all major democracies, citizenship is lost only through a truly voluntary act. No automatic mechanism, neither in the United States nor in Italy, can replace the will of the citizen,” he stated. the newspaper.
High legal risk
According to him, the automatic mechanism for loss of citizenship is considered the most controversial point of the proposal. The presumption of renunciation by omission directly contradicts the consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which protects the citizen's right to maintain their nationality unless they clearly express a desire to relinquish it.
If the bill moves forward in Congress, Aprigliano believes it will be challenged in court on grounds of unconstitutionality.
The proposal would affect thousands of Americans with dual citizenship, including approximately 20 million descendants entitled to Italian citizenship.
Parallel with the Italian case
The discussion about the limits of citizenship is not restricted to the United States. In Italy, the topic is also progressing intensely. The reform approved in 2025 altered the rules for the transmission of Italian citizenship, restricting the right to descendants up to the second generation.
The change breaks with a centuries-old legal tradition and has a direct impact on families spread across countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and the United States.
For Aprigliano, the parallel between the two cases is evident. "The question is the same on both sides of the Atlantic: to what extent can a State limit a right that stems from family origin and identity?"
The new legislation has been challenged and is now under review by the Italian Constitutional Court, which will have to decide on March 11, 2026.If the changes comply with Article 22 of the Constitution, which prohibits the removal of citizenship for political or discriminatory reasons: "No one may be deprived, for political reasons, of legal capacity, citizenship, or name."
FOLLOW-US
