Supreme Court invalidates gender inequality in citizenship law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a gender distinction in U.S. immigration law that treats mothers and fathers differently when determining a child's citizenship, calling such inequality "stunningly anachronistic."

The high court, in a 8-0 ruling authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that a provision in federal law that defines how people born overseas can be eligible for U.S. citizenship violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

The ruling, however, may not help the man who brought the case, New York resident Luis Morales-Santana, who was seeking to avoid deportation to the Dominican Republic after being convicted of several offenses.

The law requires that unwed fathers who are American citizens spend at least five years living in the United States - a 2012 amendment reduced it from 10 years - before they can confer citizenship to a child born abroad, out of wedlock and to a partner who is not a U.S. citizen.

For unwed U.S. mothers in the same situation, the requirement was only one year.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court said that until Congress revises the law, both women and men will be covered by the five-year requirement.

Ginsburg, known for her work on gender equality before she became a jurist, wrote for the court that in light of the Supreme Court's various rulings regarding the equal protection guarantee since 1971, having separate "duration-of-residence requirements for unwed mothers and fathers who have accepted parental responsibility is stunningly anachronistic."

The arguments made in defense of the law by former President Barack Obama's administration before he left office in January "cannot withstand inspection under a Constitution that requires the government to respect the equal dignity and stature of its male and female citizens," Ginsburg wrote. - Read More

Supreme Court invalidates gender inequality in citizenship law

Another U.S. appeals court refuses to revive Trump travel ban