Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner v. United States
Addressed the precedent set by Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), which upheld a law imposing different requirements in situations regarding children born out of wedlock to U.S. citizen fathers versus U.S. citizen mothers.
564 U.S. 210 · No. 09-5801 · 2010 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 13, 2011 · argued Nov 10, 2010
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: citizenship
The voteEach side
4–44 on each side
Equally divided: the decision below stands
Affirmed. Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed by an equally divided Court: with the justices split evenly, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit stands, but the Court wrote no opinion and the ruling sets no precedent for other cases.
Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner 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.
Flores-Villar v. United States, 564 U.S. 210 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the precedent set by Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), which upheld a law imposing different requirements in situations regarding children born out of wedlock to U.S. citizen fathers versus U.S. citizen mothers. Flores-Villar attempted to challenge the gender discrimination between these requirements, but was ultimately unsuccessful, as the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision with a 4-4 split, leaving the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place without setting a binding precedent.
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
The Court split evenly, 4–4, which leaves the lower court’s decision in place without an opinion. Each justice who took part is placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2010 term.
Did not take part: Elena Kagan.
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
- Ruben Flores-Villar, PetitionerAlien, 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.
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
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.
- Jun 13, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 4–4: affirmed. Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner lost.
- Nov 10, 2010ArguedArgued · 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, Ninth Circuit.
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
8 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: citizenship, newest first.
- Trump v. BarbaraLandmark · Citizenship146 S. Ct. 2438Jun 30, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2438Civil rightsLandmark · Citizenship6–36–3 band
- Sessions, Att'y Gen. v. Morales-Santana137 S. Ct. 1678Jun 12, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1678Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Pangilinan et al.486 U.S. 875Jun 17, 1988 · 486 U.S. 875Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Astrup v. Immigration and Naturalization Service402 U.S. 509May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 509Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Berenyi v. District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service385 U.S. 630Jan 23, 1967 · 385 U.S. 630Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Montana v. Kennedy, Attorney General366 U.S. 308May 22, 1961 · 366 U.S. 308Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Tak Shan Fong v. United States359 U.S. 102Mar 23, 1959 · 359 U.S. 102Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Moser v. United States341 U.S. 41Apr 9, 1951 · 341 U.S. 41Civil rights9–0Unanimous 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.