How do due process and equal protection apply to dual citizens in deportation cases?
Executive summary
Dual citizens generally retain the constitutional protections of due process and (where relevant) equal protection; U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked except through formal denaturalization or voluntary renunciation, and courts have repeatedly held that non‑citizens inside the U.S. are “persons” entitled to due process [1] [2]. Recent litigation and appellate rulings in 2025 have focused on limits to rapid, administrative deportation schemes because of serious due‑process risks, and the Supreme Court and lower courts are actively addressing what procedural rights attach before removal, including removals to third countries [3] [4] [5].
1. Constitutional baseline: who gets due process and equal protection
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due‑process clauses protect every person within U.S. borders; courts have made clear that immigrants — including noncitizens — are “persons” entitled to at least some procedural protections before detention or removal [1]. Equal protection analysis differs: the Constitution’s formal equal‑protection guarantee applies directly to states via the Fourteenth Amendment and to federal action through the Fifth Amendment’s liberty and equal‑protection principles, but how strictly courts scrutinize government distinctions depends on the classification at issue; available sources emphasize due process more than a uniform equal‑protection rule in removal contexts [1]. Sources do not provide a single, definitive test for how equal protection applies specifically to dual citizens in deportation cases — not found in current reporting.
2. Dual citizenship: practical protections and rare routes to deportation
A person who holds U.S. citizenship and citizenship of another country generally keeps the protections of U.S. citizenship unless they voluntarily renounce it or a court successfully completes denaturalization based on fraud or other statutory grounds [2]. That means a U.S.‑citizen dual national cannot lawfully be deported unless a court first strips citizenship through formal proceedings — a process different from ordinary immigration removal [2] [6]. Reports of American citizens being detained or mistakenly removed have prompted litigation and judicial skepticism about executive practices [6].
3. Administrative fast‑track deportations and due‑process scrutiny
The Trump administration’s 2025 expansion of expedited removal and other fast‑track processes triggered multiple legal challenges because courts found substantial risks of erroneous summary removals and inadequate procedural safeguards [7] [4] [5]. Federal appellate judges said the administration was unlikely to show its systems adequately protected migrants’ Fifth Amendment due‑process rights when extending expedited removal beyond the border [4] [5]. The legal fight over how far the executive may shortcut standard immigration‑court procedures is active, with appeals scheduled and emergency motions filed in cases involving removal to third countries [3] [8].
4. Removal to third countries and the limits of process
Litigants and courts have contested whether the government can deport people to third countries without reopening removal orders or providing additional notice and hearings; a recent Supreme Court opinion and lower‑court filings underscore that the government cannot avoid due‑process obligations by asserting administrative shortcuts [3]. Advocacy groups and legal observers warn that rapid dismissals of pending cases followed by immediate arrests can be used to bypass ordinary immigration‑court review — a practice that raises due‑process concerns for citizens, lawful permanent residents and noncitizens alike [7] [8].
5. Mistaken deportations, denaturalization risk, and real‑world consequences
Multiple reported cases in 2025 involved U.S. citizens or people with withholding orders being detained or moved overseas, sometimes tied to administrative errors or aggressive enforcement priorities; judges have described some removals as “illegal and unconstitutional” and ordered hearings [9] [6]. At the same time, the Department of Justice announced prioritization of denaturalization in certain categories — a civil‑law path that, if successful, can render a former citizen removable after due process [10]. Available sources stress that legal representation is a critical safeguard against wrongful deportation because complexity and administrative errors lead to mistaken removals [1].
6. What this means for dual citizens facing deportation
Dual citizens should not be treated as ordinary noncitizens in deportation proceedings: U.S. citizenship is presumptively durable and courts require formal denaturalization steps before loss of citizenship can lead to deportation [2] [6]. Nevertheless, the recent expansion of expedited removal and aggressive enforcement has led to documented mistakes and litigation over procedural protections, meaning that dual nationals can still be at risk of detention, erroneous transfer, or administrative action that requires immediate legal challenge [7] [4] [5]. Sources do not provide a step‑by‑step checklist for dual citizens — not found in current reporting.
Limitations and competing perspectives: legal NGOs and court opinions emphasize the breadth of due process for “persons” and the danger of fast removals [1] [4]. The executive contends it needs tools to enforce immigration law quickly; courts have pushed back where records show serious procedural gaps [3] [5]. Available sources do not state a definitive outcome for ongoing appeals and Supreme Court decisions — those remain in litigation [3] [5].