Trop v. Dulles, Secretary of State, et al.
The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime.
356 U.S. 86 · No. 70 · 1957 term · Warren Court
Decided Mar 31, 1958 · argued May 2, 1957, reargued Oct 28, 1957
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: loss of citizenship, denaturalization
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: Earl Warren
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Trop won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Trop was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1957 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Earl WarrenWrote the majority opinion
Hugo BlackWrote a concurrence
William BrennanWrote a concurrence
William DouglasJoined the majority
Charles WhittakerJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Felix FrankfurterWrote a dissent
Tom ClarkJoined a dissent
Harold BurtonJoined a dissent
John HarlanJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- TropAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Respondent
- Dulles, Secretary of State, et al.Department or Secretary of State
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 31, 1958DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Trop won.
- Oct 28, 1957RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- May 2, 1957ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
24 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: loss of citizenship, denaturalization, newest first.
- Maslenjak v. United States137 S. Ct. 1918Jun 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1918Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Kungys v. United States485 U.S. 759May 2, 1988 · 485 U.S. 759Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Fedorenko v. United States449 U.S. 490Jan 21, 1981 · 449 U.S. 490Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Vance, Secretary of State v. Terrazas444 U.S. 252Jan 15, 1980 · 444 U.S. 252Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Rogers, Secretary of State v. Bellei401 U.S. 815Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 815Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Afroyim v. Rusk, Secretary of StateLandmark · Citizenship387 U.S. 253May 29, 1967 · 387 U.S. 253Civil rightsLandmark · Citizenship5–45–4 band
- Schneider v. Rusk, Secretary of State377 U.S. 163May 18, 1964 · 377 U.S. 163Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Kennedy, Attorney General, v. Mendoza-Martinez372 U.S. 144Feb 18, 1963 · 372 U.S. 144Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Rusk, Secretary of State v. Cort369 U.S. 367Apr 2, 1962 · 369 U.S. 367Civil rights5–36–3 band
- United States v. Lucchese, Alias Luckese, Alias Lucase, Alias Arra, Alias Luchese365 U.S. 290Feb 20, 1961 · 365 U.S. 290Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Costello v. United States365 U.S. 265Feb 20, 1961 · 365 U.S. 265Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Polites v. United States364 U.S. 426Nov 21, 1960 · 364 U.S. 426Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Chaunt v. United States364 U.S. 350Nov 14, 1960 · 364 U.S. 350Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Maisenberg v. United States356 U.S. 670May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 670Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Nowak v. United States356 U.S. 660May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 660Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Nishikawa v. Dulles, Secretary of State356 U.S. 129Mar 31, 1958 · 356 U.S. 129Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Perez v. Brownell, Attorney General356 U.S. 44Mar 31, 1958 · 356 U.S. 44Civil rights5–45–4 band
- United States v. Zucca, Alias Sarni351 U.S. 91Apr 30, 1956 · 351 U.S. 91Civil rights5–36–3 band
- United States v. Minker350 U.S. 179Jan 16, 1956 · 350 U.S. 179Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Gonzales v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.350 U.S. 920Dec 12, 1955 · 350 U.S. 920Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Mandoli v. Acheson, Secretary of State344 U.S. 133Nov 24, 1952 · 344 U.S. 133Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Bindczyck v. Finucane, Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, et al.342 U.S. 76Nov 26, 1951 · 342 U.S. 76Civil rights5–27–2 band
- Ackermann v. United States340 U.S. 193Dec 11, 1950 · 340 U.S. 193Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Savorgnan v. United States et al.338 U.S. 491Jan 9, 1950 · 338 U.S. 491Civil rights6–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.