InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Lorelyn Penero Miller v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State

The Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent.

523 U.S. 420 · No. 96-1060 · 1997 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Apr 22, 1998 · argued Nov 4, 1997

Civil rights · Illegitimates, rights

Majority opinion: John Stevens

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Lorelyn Penero Miller lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Lorelyn Penero Miller 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.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to an illegitimate foreign-born child of an American father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1997 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensBreyerGinsburgSouterKennedyO'ConnorRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Lorelyn Penero MillerAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
Respondent
Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of StateDepartment 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.

Report a correction

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)
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 22, 1998DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Lorelyn Penero Miller lost.
  2. Nov 4, 1997ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

19 other argued cases since 1946 on illegitimates, rights, newest first.

  1. Clark v. Jeter486 U.S. 456Jun 6, 1988 · 486 U.S. 456Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  2. Reed v. Campbell, Individually and As Administratrix of the Estate of Ricker476 U.S. 852Jun 11, 1986 · 476 U.S. 852Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  3. Pickett et al. v. Brown et al.462 U.S. 1Jun 6, 1983 · 462 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  4. Mills v. Habluetzel456 U.S. 91Apr 5, 1982 · 456 U.S. 91Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  5. United States v. Clark, Guardian445 U.S. 23Feb 26, 1980 · 445 U.S. 23Civil rights7–27–2 band
  6. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Boles et al.443 U.S. 282Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 282Civil rights5–45–4 band
  7. Lalli v. Lalli, Administratrix, et al.439 U.S. 259Dec 11, 1978 · 439 U.S. 259Civil rights5–45–4 band
  8. Fiallo, a Minor, by Rodriguez, et al. v. Bell, Attorney General, et al.430 U.S. 787Apr 26, 1977 · 430 U.S. 787Civil rights6–36–3 band

  9. Trimble et al. v. Gordon et al.430 U.S. 762Apr 26, 1977 · 430 U.S. 762Civil rights5–45–4 band
  10. Norton, a Minor, by Chiles v. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare427 U.S. 524Jun 29, 1976 · 427 U.S. 524Civil rights6–36–3 band
  11. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Lucas et al.427 U.S. 495Jun 29, 1976 · 427 U.S. 495Civil rights6–36–3 band
  12. Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare417 U.S. 628Jun 19, 1974 · 417 U.S. 628Civil rights8–18–1 band
  13. Linda R. S. v. Richard D. et al.410 U.S. 614Mar 5, 1973 · 410 U.S. 614Civil rights5–45–4 band

  14. Gomez v. Perez409 U.S. 535Jan 17, 1973 · 409 U.S. 535Civil rights7–27–2 band
  15. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. et al.406 U.S. 164Apr 24, 1972 · 406 U.S. 164Civil rights8–18–1 band
  16. Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company of America405 U.S. 318Mar 20, 1972 · 405 U.S. 318Civil rights4–45–4 band
  17. Labine, Tutrix v. Vincent, Administrator401 U.S. 532Mar 29, 1971 · 401 U.S. 532Civil rights5–45–4 band
  18. Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. et al.391 U.S. 73May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 73Civil rights6–36–3 band
  19. Levy, Administratrix v. Louisiana Through the Charity Hospital of Louisiana at New Orleans Board of Administrators et al.391 U.S. 68May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 68Civil rights6–36–3 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.

Report a correction

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.