Have any members of Congress been successfully removed or disqualified from office due to citizenship or naturalization disputes, and what were the precedents?

1. What the Constitution and Congress may do about naturalization — and its limits

Article I gives Congress exclusive authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which has long been interpreted to allow Congress to set conditions for naturalization and to pursue denaturalization in specific statutory circumstances ^{[4] [5]}; however, Supreme Court doctrine significantly limits Congress’s power to strip citizenship involuntarily, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from congressional forcible expatriation except in narrow, voluntary-conduct cases (Afroyim v. Rusk) ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Judicial precedents that narrowed congressional reach over citizenship

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk established that Congress cannot involuntarily revoke citizenship conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively foreclosing broad congressional power to purge naturalized citizens from the polity ^[6]; later cases and scholarship have confined denaturalization to fraud-based or voluntary, intentional relinquishment scenarios and require judicial proceedings rather than unilateral legislative declarations ^{[7] [5] [2]}.

3. Denaturalization exists but follows judicial process and strict tests

Federal law and the courts permit cancellation of a certificate of naturalization where the naturalization was illegally procured or procured by willful misrepresentation—Fedorenko and later cases set conditions for denaturalization and the Supreme Court in Kungys articulated a demanding four-part test (misrepresentation, willfulness, materiality, and procurement) for civil denaturalization ^{[5] [2]}; these are judicial remedies pursued in court, not instant disqualifications from federal office by statute alone ^{[5] [2]}.

4. No historical precedent of Congress mass-removing members for foreign birth or dual nationality

Contemporary reporting and fact‑checking show that dramatic claims of the Senate passing a law ejecting dozens of naturalized members or dual citizens from federal posts are false; the “Born in America” online narratives were debunked and lack corroboration in mainstream records of congressional action or C-SPAN coverage ^[1]. There is no reliable documentation in the sources provided of Members of Congress being escorted out or stripped of office en masse because they were naturalized or held foreign citizenship ^[1].

5. Political proposals vs. legal reality — bills, disclosure measures, and political motives

Legislators have introduced bills targeting dual citizenship or proposing disclosure requirements—examples include the Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act and the Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act—which indicate political pressure to restrict or stigmatize foreign allegiances, but these are legislative proposals focused on future eligibility or ethics disclosure rather than established legal mechanisms for retroactive removal of sitting Members ^{[8] [3] [9]}. Observers such as the Brennan Center emphasize the high legal hurdles to stripping naturalized Americans of citizenship and warn that political moves to do so risk clashing with settled Supreme Court protections ^[2].

6. What the record leaves unproven and where disputes would go next

The sources do not identify any successful disqualification of a Member of Congress based solely on being naturalized or holding dual citizenship, and they show that successful challenges would likely require court win on denaturalization grounds or a highly unusual proof of voluntary expatriation; absent new, verifiable examples beyond the disputed viral claims, the constitutional and judicial precedents make mass removals legally implausible and politically risky ^{[6] [5] [2] [1]}.