Can Congress pass new laws to target dual nationals for citizenship revocation and what are constitutional limits?
Executive summary
Congress can propose laws like the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 that would require dual nationals to choose one nationality or be “deemed to have voluntarily relinquished” U.S. citizenship, but such automatic or passive-loss schemes clash with long‑standing Supreme Court precedent that voluntariness and intent are required for expatriation (see Afroyim and reporting on the bill) [1] [2]. The bill would give dual citizens a one‑year window to renounce other citizenships or face loss of U.S. status and would treat later acquisition of foreign nationality as automatic relinquishment — a proposal widely reported and immediately flagged as constitutionally vulnerable [3] [4].
1. Congress can write harsh rules — but courts decide constitutionality
Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would make it unlawful to “simultaneously possess any foreign citizenship,” require written renunciations or notices, and declare inaction to be a voluntary relinquishment of U.S. nationality within a year [1] [5]. Multiple outlets describe enforcement mechanisms — databases, Department of State tracking, and DHS involvement — and the bill’s practical demand that affected people either renounce another nationality or be reclassified as non‑citizens [6] [5]. However, long precedents limit what Congress can accomplish: reporters and legal commentators note that a law that deems mere inaction to equal voluntary renunciation would “directly conflict” with Supreme Court holdings that protect citizenship from involuntary stripping [2] [4].
2. The Supreme Court line the bill would run up against
The most relevant constitutional limits come from Supreme Court rulings summarized in the coverage: Afroyim v. Rusk held that Congress cannot strip a person of U.S. citizenship without the citizen’s voluntary renunciation, and courts have required both voluntariness and affirmative intent to relinquish nationality [2] [1]. News reports explicitly say Congress “cannot decree that the failure to perform an act…constitutes voluntary intent to relinquish US nationality” and characterize the bill’s automatic or deemed expatriation as legally suspect [4] [2].
3. How the bill would operate in practice and its consequences
If enacted, the proposal would give current dual nationals one year to renounce a foreign nationality or submit a declaration to the Secretary of State or DHS; failure to act would trigger automatic loss of U.S. citizenship for “purposes of” immigration and nationality law, and future acquisition of foreign citizenship after enactment would be treated as relinquishment [5] [1]. Reporting flags downstream impacts: forced renunciations could trigger U.S. tax consequences for covered expatriates and disrupt families, property, business, and travel plans for those who cannot practically renounce a foreign status [2] [7].
4. Legislative appetite versus practical and legal barriers
Multiple outlets place this bill in a broader 2025 legislative push to tighten citizenship rules — including other proposals to restrict birthright citizenship and bar foreign citizens from Congress — but emphasize the lengthy legislative road and the very likely litigation that would follow [8] [9]. Reporters and analysts note there is no consensus among executive agencies or established administrative practice to end dual nationality, and the State Department’s guidance recognizes dual nationality as an interaction of foreign laws rather than a status the U.S. can unilaterally eliminate without serious legal friction [4] [10].
5. Competing viewpoints and political framing
Proponents frame the bill as preserving “sole and exclusive allegiance” and preventing conflicts of interest, with Sen. Moreno calling undivided allegiance a national interest [11] [1]. Critics — including legal scholars cited in news coverage — portray the move as unprecedented, constitutionally fraught, and likely to force people into untenable choices or mass renunciations; some frame the effort as part of a nationalist agenda that disproportionately affects immigrants and transnational families [12] [13].
6. What would determine the outcome: courts, Congress, or politics?
Even if Congress passes such a statute, reporting makes clear the decisive test will be the federal courts: Afroyim and subsequent doctrine require voluntariness and intent, so courts would likely scrutinize any law that presumes loss from inaction [2] [4]. At the same time, political reality matters — enforcement, databases, tax rules for “covered expatriates,” and the administrative burden on State and DHS would shape whether the policy could be practically imposed before judicial review [2] [6].
Limitations: available sources do not provide the full text of the bill as amended in committee or any definitive judicial ruling about an identical scheme; the analysis above relies on news reports and CRS background that explicitly cite Afroyim and describe the bill’s core mechanisms [2] [10].