How does dual nationality affect constitutional protections against denaturalization?
Executive summary
Dual nationality itself is not newly criminalized, but recent legislation proposals (Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025) would force citizens to choose one nationality or face automatic loss of U.S. citizenship after one year (reported in multiple outlets) [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, the Justice Department has prioritized denaturalization enforcement for cases involving fraud, national-security concerns, or illegal procurement of naturalization—areas where the government already seeks judicial revocation of naturalized status [4] [5].
1. Dual‑citizenship repeal proposals raise a constitutional clash
Senator Bernie Moreno’s Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would bar simultaneous U.S. and foreign citizenship and treat failure to renounce foreign nationality within a year as automatic loss of U.S. citizenship, a dramatic statutory shortcut reported by several outlets [2] [3] [6]. Proponents frame the bill as restoring “sole and exclusive allegiance” to the United States [3]. Opponents and some legal commentators warn the bill “flouts” constitutional protections that require voluntariness and affirmative intent before citizenship can be lost—an argument seen in reporting that the bill would eliminate burdens the government now faces to prove intent to relinquish citizenship [2].
2. Constitutional protections that courts have required
Available sources emphasize that U.S. constitutional law has long placed high barriers on involuntary denaturalization: courts respect the constitutional requirement that loss of citizenship requires voluntary, affirmative conduct and proof of intent, not mere inaction [2] [7]. Forbes reports the bill would “flout” those protections by presuming relinquishment from mere inaction—an approach inconsistent with the longstanding judicial framework scholars like Steve Vladeck describe [2] [7]. If enacted, the statute would likely trigger immediate constitutional litigation over whether Congress can treat passive dual‑status as automatic expatriation [2] [7].
3. Denaturalization is already a judicial, evidence‑driven process
Denaturalization under current law is carried out by the DOJ in federal court and is confined to specific grounds: illegal procurement of naturalization, concealment or willful misrepresentation, and certain national‑security or criminal conduct [5] [4]. The National Immigration Forum and DOJ materials underline that revocation requires court proceedings and evidence, not summary administrative action [5] [4]. Legal guides and advocacy groups note denaturalization is rare historically, though enforcement priorities have expanded [5] [8].
4. Enforcement priorities have shifted, increasing political stakes
In 2025 the DOJ issued a memo directing the Civil Division to prioritize denaturalization in certain categories, notably fraud, national‑security risks, and other severe misconduct—effectively sharpening enforcement, even as legal standards remain [4] [5]. Multiple legal analyses describe this as a renewed, aggressive posture that could lead to more cases, but they also stress constitutional and procedural constraints remain significant and litigable [7] [9].
5. Practical consequences for dual nationals would be severe and far‑reaching
Reporting warns the proposed Exclusive Citizenship Act would create mass triggers for loss of citizenship and collateral consequences—tax penalties for those deemed “covered expatriates” and potential deportation for those stripped of citizenship—while placing the burden on individuals to renounce foreign ties within a short deadline [2]. News accounts estimate a large share of Americans would be eligible for foreign citizenship, meaning the law could affect millions if implemented [3] [2].
6. Two competing legal narratives: sovereignty vs. individual rights
Supporters present the bill as reinforcing national allegiance and simplifying legal obligations [3]. Critics, legal scholars, and civil‑rights advocates frame it as an unprecedented intrusion into constitutional safeguards against involuntary expatriation and as likely to produce discriminatory enforcement, especially given expanded DOJ denaturalization priorities [2] [9] [8]. Both narratives appear in the available reporting; which prevails will depend on judicial review and political momentum [3] [7].
7. What reporting doesn’t yet answer
Available sources do not mention key constitutional litigation outcomes that would determine enforceability of the proposed automatic‑expatriation scheme—there is no reporting here of any court rulings upholding such a statutory forfeiture mechanism (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not provide the full statutory text with drafting nuances that could matter in court—those details are not available in these reports (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion: Dual nationality today interacts with strong judicial protections against involuntary loss of citizenship; proposed congressional changes would seek to erase that margin by statutorily treating dual status as resignation, a move that both escalates political stakes and virtually guarantees constitutional litigation given the DOJ’s renewed enthusiasm for denaturalization [2] [5] [4].