946 F.3d 1055
9th Cir.2020Background
- Luis Mayea-Pulido was born in Mexico in 1978 to two non‑U.S. citizens, moved to the U.S. months later; his parents married in 1981 and his father naturalized when Luis was eight. Luis became a lawful permanent resident but never naturalized.
- Under the 1996 version of 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), a child born abroad could derive citizenship automatically if both parents naturalized (with limited exceptions allowing one parent to suffice in cases of death, legal separation with sole legal custody, or certain out‑of‑wedlock situations). Because only Luis’s father naturalized, Luis did not derive citizenship.
- Luis was deported in 2003 after criminal convictions, repeatedly reentered unlawfully, and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in 2015. After subsequent reentry he was tried in 2017 for another illegal reentry and convicted by a jury.
- At trial he moved for acquittal, arguing § 1432(a) denied equal protection by treating children differently based on their parents’ marital/custody status (he contended he would have derived citizenship had his parents been legally separated), and that Morales‑Santana changed the standard of review.
- The district court denied acquittal; on appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether § 1432(a) violated equal protection and whether Morales‑Santana compelled a different result from prior Ninth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1432(a)’s parental‑marital/custody distinctions violate equal protection (i.e., deprived Mayea of derivative citizenship) | § 1432(a) impermissibly discriminates on the basis of parents’ marital status because a child of separated parents can derive citizenship from one parent while a child of married parents cannot | § 1432(a) is rationally related to a legitimate interest—protecting the parental rights of a non‑citizen parent—and therefore constitutional | Court applied rational‑basis review and held § 1432(a) constitutional; Mayea did not derive citizenship and remains an alien for § 1326 purposes |
| Whether Morales‑Santana requires heightened scrutiny of the marital/custody classification and effectively overruled Barthelemy v. Ashcroft | Morales‑Santana repudiates the categorical deference used in Barthelemy and, via its footnote, treats parental‑marital classifications as triggering heightened scrutiny | Morales‑Santana clarified review for citizenship rules but its footnote refers to legitimacy (illegitimacy) jurisprudence; classifications here (post‑birth legal separation/custody) are not legitimacy‑based and do not trigger heightened scrutiny | Court held Morales‑Santana did not extend intermediate scrutiny to the § 1432(a) classification; rational‑basis review applies and Barthelemy’s ultimate holding remains binding |
| Whether invalidation of 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) in Morales‑Santana voids the definition of “alien” and thus § 1326 (illegal reentry) | Morales‑Santana’s invalidation of parts of the INA undermines the statutory definition of "alien," rendering § 1326 unconstitutional | § 1326 remains "fully operative" after severance of unrelated provisions; plaintiff offers no basis to invalidate § 1326 | Court rejected the argument; § 1326 survives and Mayea’s conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Sessions v. Morales‑Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017) (Supreme Court: struck down gender‑and legitimacy‑based disparities in citizenship transmission and clarified review for citizenship statutes)
- Barthelemy v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2003) (Ninth Circuit: upheld § 1432(a) under rational‑basis review; binding precedent on § 1432(a)’s constitutionality)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (Supreme Court: discussed congressional power over immigration; cited in prior deference analyses)
- Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988) (Supreme Court: applied heightened scrutiny to classifications that penalize children based on illegitimacy)
- Dent v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit: recognized Morales‑Santana’s effect on review of citizenship provisions and analyzed scrutiny as in non‑immigration equal protection claims)
- United States v. Casasola, 670 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2012) (Ninth Circuit: recognized protecting non‑citizen parental rights as a legitimate legislative purpose)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Supreme Court: discussed severability principles cited in rejecting a collateral attack on § 1326)