Legal Definitions - Vance v. Terrazas

Vance v. Terrazas is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements for a U.S. citizen to lose their citizenship, a process known as expatriation. The Court established two crucial principles:

• Intent to Relinquish Citizenship: The government must prove that a U.S. citizen not only voluntarily performed an act that could lead to the loss of citizenship (an "expatriating act"), but also that they specifically intended to give up their U.S. citizenship when performing that act. It is not enough for the act to be voluntary; the intent to surrender citizenship must also be present.
• Standard of Proof and Presumption: The government must prove this intent by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it must show that it is more likely than not that the individual intended to relinquish citizenship. The Court also held that the government can initially presume that an expatriating act was performed voluntarily. However, the individual can challenge this presumption by presenting evidence (e.g., showing they acted under duress). If the individual successfully proves the act was not voluntary, then no expatriation occurs. If they do not, the government still bears the burden of proving the necessary intent to relinquish citizenship.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles of Vance v. Terrazas:

• Example 1: Dual Citizenship for Practical Reasons Without Intent to Renounce

  Maria, a U.S. citizen by birth, moves to Canada for work and eventually decides to become a naturalized Canadian citizen to secure better job prospects and access social services. During the Canadian naturalization process, she takes an oath of allegiance to Canada. However, Maria consistently renews her U.S. passport, votes in U.S. federal elections, maintains a U.S. bank account, and frequently expresses her long-term desire to retire in the United States.

  How this illustrates Vance v. Terrazas: Maria performed an expatriating act (naturalizing in a foreign country and taking an oath of allegiance). However, under Vance v. Terrazas, the U.S. government would need to prove that Maria intended to give up her U.S. citizenship when she became a Canadian citizen. Her continued actions (renewing U.S. passport, voting, expressing a desire to return) suggest a lack of such intent. The government would likely struggle to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard to show she intended to relinquish her U.S. citizenship.

• Example 2: Serving in a Foreign Military Under Coercion

  David, a U.S. citizen, is living in a foreign country when a civil war breaks out. He is forcibly conscripted into the local military under threat of severe punishment or death if he refuses. He serves for a period before managing to escape and return to the U.S. The U.S. government later investigates whether his service in a foreign military constituted an expatriating act.

  How this illustrates Vance v. Terrazas: Serving in a foreign military can be considered an expatriating act. The government might initially presume David's service was voluntary. However, David could rebut this presumption by providing evidence that he was coerced and acted under duress, not voluntarily. If he successfully proves his actions were not voluntary, then, according to Vance v. Terrazas, he would not have lost his U.S. citizenship, regardless of his intent. Even if the voluntariness was not fully rebutted, the government would still need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David intended to give up his U.S. citizenship by serving in that military, which would be difficult given the circumstances of coercion.