Miller v. Albright case brief

Miller v. Albright (1998)(S. 9)

Facts: Couple was not married, when citizen parent is the mother and the parents aren’t married, kid is a citizen if the mother meets minimum presence requirements. If mom is a citizen, in order for a foreign-born child to be a citizen, must just have established residence here for a minimal period of time. If father, as in this case, is a citizen, must:

1. prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence; and
2. show evidence of actual relationship with kid during period of child’s minority (b/f 18)

Holding: SC rejected challenge to federal statute that gave US citizenship automatically to child born out of wedlock to an American mom in a foreign country, but denied citizenship to child whose only US parent was her father, unless a paternity decree was entered b/f the child turned 18. Authority under Article I, §8, clause 4/

Stevens, Rehnquist: Found that the statute was based on a neutral state goal of ensuring reliable proof of parenthood, use rational basis.

O’Connor: Said that stereotypes can survive rational basis, but probably not strict scrutiny. Kennedy and O’Connor imply that if proper P before them (the father), they would apply intermediate scrutiny and it wouldn’t stand.

Thomas, Scalia: No standing b/c Miller, the daughter is a 3^rd party. Must prove you’re the injured party.

Ginsburg (dissenting) joined by Souter, Bryer: Relied on anti-stereotyping rationale for heightened scrutiny set forth in Craig and VMI. Say should apply intermediate scrutiny, does not pass.

Oucome determinitive