Fedorenko v. United States
The court held that because Fedorenko lied on his visa application, his visa and citizenship were invalid.
449 U.S. 490 · No. 79-5602 · 1980 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 21, 1981 · argued Oct 15, 1980
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: loss of citizenship, denaturalization
Majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Fedorenko lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Fedorenko was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the citizenship status of Feodor Fedorenko, a naturalized citizen who had lied about his past as a guard at a Nazi death camp on his visa and citizenship applications. The court held that because Fedorenko lied on his visa application, his visa and citizenship were invalid. Fedorenko was a Ukrainian-born soldier who fought in World War II, was captured, and served as a guard at Treblinka extermination camp for over a year. He emigrated to the United States in 1949, lying on his visa application to cover up his time at Treblinka. He lived a quiet life in the U.S. for decades, but when the government became aware of his past, they initiated denaturalization proceedings against him in 1977, looking to revoke his citizenship. As a result of Fedorenko's eventual loss, he was deported to the Soviet Union and executed for treason and war crimes.
Fedorenko was one of many Nazi collaborators living quietly in the United States after World War II; at the public's urging, the government started investigating in the early '70s, but they were slow and ineffective, and when they filed suit to denaturalize Fedorenko, they did not properly prepare for trial. The District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled for Fedorenko, but the government – by then under better management – won at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered Fedorenko's citizenship to be revoked. Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for a 7–2 Supreme Court majority, upheld the appeals court's judgment, but did not endorse all of its reasoning.
The government argued that Fedorenko's citizenship should be revoked because it was gained "by concealment of a material fact"; the immigration law that Fedorenko used to enter the U.S. did not allow people who "assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations", so if Fedorenko had not lied about his past as a guard, he could have been denied entry. Fedorenko offered three defenses, based on duress, materiality, and equity. First, Fedorenko argued that the immigration law did not exclude him because he only served as a guard under duress; the district court accepted this argument, but the Supreme Court held that the law had no exception for duress. Second, Fedorenko argued that because he was forced to be a guard, his lie was immaterial under the court's ruling in Chaunt v. United States (1960); he would have been let in either way.
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 1980 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Thurgood MarshallWrote the majority opinion
Harry BlackmunWrote a concurrence
William BrennanJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Byron WhiteWrote 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
- FedorenkoAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- 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
- Statutory construction
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.
- Jan 21, 1981DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Fedorenko lost.
- Oct 15, 1980ArguedArgued · 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, Fifth Circuit: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida Southern 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
- 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
- Trop v. Dulles, Secretary of State, et al.356 U.S. 86Mar 31, 1958 · 356 U.S. 86Civil rights5–45–4 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.