Fox v. Clinton
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121597
D.D.C.2010Background
- Fox, a US citizen by birth, resides in Israel and acquired Israeli citizenship in 2002 under the Law of Return.
- Fox claims expatriation under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1) (naturalization upon his own application) and § 1481(a)(2) (oath/affirmation).
- DoS denied expatriation under §1481(a)(1) because Fox obtained Israeli citizenship via the Law of Return, not formal naturalization.
- DoS denied expatriation under §1481(a)(2) because Fox’s personal oath was not a meaningful, formal state oath required for expatriation.
- DoS advised Fox to pursue renunciation before a US consular officer under §1481(a)(5); Fox declined this route and filed suit.
- Fox filed suit April 5, 2010 seeking recognition of expatriating acts and a Certificate of Loss of Nationality; DoS final agency action denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fox expatriated under §1481(a)(1). | Fox naturalized upon own application via Law of Return. | Naturalization requires formal process under §1481(a)(1); Fox did not naturalize through traditional naturalization. | No expatriation under §1481(a)(1). |
| Whether Fox expatriated under §1481(a)(2). | A personal oath suffices as a meaningful expatriating act. | Only formal oaths recognized; Fox’s oath was not a state-required formal oath. | No expatriation under §1481(a)(2). |
| Whether renunciation before a US consular officer under §1481(a)(5) is the proper route for expatriation. | Renunciation could be bypassed by using other expatriating acts. | Renunciation before a US officer is the recognized route if pursued. | Court did not disturb DoS focus on evidence; renunciation route remains available but not litigated here. |
| Whether the action falls under APA review and whether the agency decision was lawful. | Final agency action should be reviewed for legality under the APA. | Agency decision was reasonable and grounded in statutory interpretation. | Court reviews under APA; decision not arbitrary or unlawful; motion to dismiss granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (final agency action is reviewable where no adequate remedy exists)
- Oljato Chapter of Navajo Tribe v. Train, 515 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (final agency action subject to review under the APA)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary or capricious standard requires rational explanation)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (agency must have a rational basis and explain its result)
- Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (1986) (requirement of a rational connection between facts and choice)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 988 F.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (agency must provide a reasoned explanation)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility standard applies to federal pleadings)