Flores-Villar v. United States, argued last week before the U.S. Supreme Court, features complicated arguments about two straightforward hot-button issues -- gender discrimination and citizenship. Right now the law offers different paths to citizenship if your parents were not married when you were born outside the United States and only one of your parents is a U.S. citizen. The mother-path is easier than the father-path. Flores-Villar wants the Court to declare him a citizen, as he would already be if his mother had been a U.S. citizen rather than his father.
At oral argument, the Justices honed in on two issues. The first was what level of scrutiny should be used to review the gender-based requirements. The second was what kind of remedy Flores-Villar should have, if any. Specifically, the Justices wondered whether the remedy should extend citizenship rights to the foreign-born children of U.S. fathers, or instead, limit the rights of the foreign-born children of U.S. mothers in the same way they are now limited for the children of U.S. fathers. In other words, if the Court grants relief, should it equalize up, or equalize down?
The briefs, lower court opinions, and oral argument transcripts can be found here. For a view that the current requirements should be tossed, see Sexing Citizenship, at Slate. For the view that the requirements should be preserved as is, see the amicus brief of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, PDF.
You be the judge.
