Sessions, Att'y Gen. v. Morales-Santana
The Court unanimously found that the Immigration and Nationality Act's longer physical presence requirements for unwed fathers than for unwed mothers, for conveying citizenship to a foreign-born child, violated equal protection and due process.· AI-written
137 S. Ct. 1678 · No. 15-1191 · 2016 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 12, 2017 · argued Nov 9, 2016
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: citizenship
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Sessions, Att'y Gen. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
Sessions, Att'y Gen. 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.
Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the difference in physical presence requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for unwed mothers and fathers when acquiring citizenship for a child born in a foreign country. Unwed fathers had longer physical presence requirements than unwed mothers in regards to being able to convey derivative citizenship. In an eight to zero decision, the court found that the difference in physical presence requirements violated the equal protection clause and due process. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. The case had implications for Congress's plenary power over immigration and the issue of statelessness.
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 2016 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Ruth GinsburgWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: Neil Gorsuch.
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
- Sessions, Att'y Gen.Department of Justice or Attorney General
- Respondent
- Morales-SantanaAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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
- Fifth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- 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.
- Jun 12, 2017DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Sessions, Att'y Gen. won.
- Nov 9, 2016ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed.
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
- Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner v. United States564 U.S. 210Jun 13, 2011 · 564 U.S. 210Civil rights4–45–4 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 argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.