Gerald Farrell v. Antony Blinken
4 F.4th 124
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- Gerald Farrell, born in California, moved to Switzerland in 1994 and naturalized as a Swiss citizen in 2004; he claims he intended by that act to relinquish U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1).
- In 2013 Farrell was arrested in Spain, extradited to the U.S., convicted, and imprisoned; while incarcerated he requested a State Department Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) to recognize his claimed expatriation.
- The State Department refused to issue a CLN because Farrell had not appeared in person at a U.S. consulate abroad to complete forms (DS-4079 and DS-4081); consular correspondence gave shifting explanations of what in-person steps were required.
- Farrell sued, arguing the Department’s in-person requirement is contrary to statute, ultra vires, and arbitrary and capricious; the district court granted summary judgment to the Department.
- The D.C. Circuit held Farrell has Article III standing (the government’s refusal to recognize expatriation is a concrete injury), concluded the Secretary has statutory authority to impose an in-person requirement, but reversed because the Department’s denial was arbitrary and capricious for giving inconsistent, unclear reasons about what Farrell must do to obtain a CLN.
- The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand to the State Department to reconsider Farrell’s CLN request, explaining its precise requirements if it again denies the request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / jurisdiction | Farrell contends denial of a CLN (refusal to recognize his expatriation) injures his statutory right to expatriate. | State contends a person remains a U.S. national until the Department issues a CLN, and denial causes no cognizable Article III injury absent enforcement threat. | Farrell has standing: refusal to recognize expatriation is a concrete, particularized injury (relies on Schnitzler precedent). |
| Statutory authority for in‑person requirement | In‑person signing/interview is not required by the INA and exceeds Department authority. | Secretary has broad regulatory authority (8 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1501) to prescribe forms and procedures, including in‑person requirements. | Secretary may impose an in‑person requirement; it fits within statutory/regulatory authority and helps prevent involuntary/accidental expatriation. |
| Ultra vires challenge (lack of departmental source) | The Department has no valid regulation authorizing an in‑person requirement for CLNs. | Form DS‑4081 and Foreign Affairs Manual indicate in‑person attestation; consular signature block requires applicant "appeared personally." | Requirement is not ultra vires: forms and FAM supply the departmental basis for an in‑person attestation. |
| APA arbitrary-and-capricious challenge | Even if an in‑person rule is lawful, denying Farrell a CLN without clear explanation is arbitrary. | Department relied on need for in‑person signature/interview to assess voluntariness and intent. | Denial was arbitrary and capricious: Department gave inconsistent, shifting reasons and failed to explain precisely what Farrell must do; remand required for reasoned reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violations require concrete injury to confer Article III standing)
- Schnitzler v. United States, 761 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (refusal to recognize renunciation can produce standing—being forced to remain a citizen is an injury)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (agency action must be reasoned; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (courts cannot supply an agency’s missing reasoned explanation)
- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (citizenship cannot be involuntarily divested; voluntariness required)
- Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (intent required for loss of citizenship)
- United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Congress recognized that expatriation may occur automatically by statute)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (concreteness inquiry considers history and congressional judgment)
- Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (review of State Department CLN denials and requirement that agency explain its decisions)