What defenses and legal remedies do dual nationals have when facing citizenship revocation?
Executive summary
Dual nationals facing U.S. citizenship revocation have established legal defenses: the government bears the burden to prove any relinquishing act was voluntary and intended to renounce citizenship, and affected people can challenge revocation in federal court [1] [2]. New 2025 proposals—most prominently Senator Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act—seek to create automatic or “deemed” expatriation for inaction, a change that industry and civil‑rights sources say would conflict with Supreme Court precedent requiring voluntariness [3] [4] [5].
1. The current legal baseline: voluntariness and burden of proof
Under long‑standing legal practice, revocation typically requires a voluntary, affirmative act showing intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship; courts have treated citizenship loss as constrained and not arbitrary, and reporting says the government carries the burden of proving both voluntariness and intent when it seeks to strip someone of nationality [1] [2]. Legal commentaries note that individuals whose citizenship is targeted have the right to appeal and to litigate the government’s claim in federal court [2] [1].
2. Common defenses dual nationals can use in court
Sources describe predictable defenses: argue the alleged conduct was not voluntary renunciation, dispute asserted intent to abandon U.S. nationality, invoke constitutional precedent limiting Congressional power to strip citizenship, and challenge evidentiary proofs the government offers [2] [1]. Practically, challengers often force the government to prove clear, affirmative renunciations rather than mere passive conduct—an evidentiary hurdle repeatedly emphasized in analysis and legal advisories [1] [2].
3. Remedies and procedure: administrative appeal and federal litigation
Available reporting states that affected persons have administrative and judicial remedies: they can appeal a decision, and revocation usually must be adjudicated through the courts—often generating protracted litigation—so federal‑court review is a central pathway for relief [2] [1]. Separate sources note that stripping naturalization—distinct but related—has been prioritized by the Department of Justice in some recent policies, suggesting increased enforcement activity and more litigation to come [6].
4. New legislation seeks to flip the burden—automatic losses and deemed expatriation
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would create a regime of automatic or “deemed” expatriation for dual nationals who fail to renounce foreign citizenship within a year or who acquire another citizenship after enactment, effectively presuming relinquishment from inaction [3] [4]. Reporting repeatedly flags that the bill would remove the government’s traditional burden to prove voluntariness and would trigger automatic consequences, including tax penalties under existing expatriation rules [3] [7].
5. Constitutional conflict and competing legal views
Multiple sources point out that Moreno’s bill directly conflicts with Supreme Court precedent—most notably Afroyim v. Rusk—which holds that Congress cannot strip a person of nationality absent voluntary renunciation; observers and legal reporters say the bill “flouts” those protections and would likely provoke immediate constitutional challenges [3] [4]. Opponents frame the legislation as politically motivated and dangerous; proponents argue it restores “sole and exclusive allegiance” and prevents divided loyalties [5] [8].
6. Practical stakes for dual nationals: criminal, tax, and statelessness risks
Reporting highlights concrete consequences beyond loss of passport: automatic expatriation could trigger “covered expatriate” tax penalties for wealthy persons and could leave people vulnerable to criminal or immigration enforcement if citizenship is removed [3] [7]. Critics warn revocation can produce statelessness and human‑rights concerns, especially when applied to naturalized citizens alleged to have engaged in serious offenses [1] [6].
7. Where things stand and what dual nationals should watch next
Current law still requires voluntariness and offers judicial review; however, multiple 2025 proposals and executive moves indicate intensified political pressure to narrow dual citizenship protections, and the proposed Exclusive Citizenship Act—if it advances—would be litigated immediately on constitutional grounds [4] [3] [7]. Sources do not mention specific new administrative procedural rules beyond ongoing policy memos and legislative texts, so practical implementation details remain uncertain and will be clarified only by future legislative text, agency rules, or court decisions (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and legal summaries; available sources do not include full bill text analysis, court filings challenging the 2025 proposals, or lower‑court decisions resolving novel claims under the new legislative framework (not found in current reporting).