The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] Wednesday in a case that will determine the constitutionality of citizenship statutes that set different requirements based on whether a child was born to unmarried parents with a US-citizen mother or a US-citizen father. Lynch v. Morales-Santana [SCOTUSblog materials] arose when Luis Ramon Morales-Santana was born in the Dominican Republic to unmarried parents, his father being a US citizen. Once the government began deportation proceedings in 1975, Morales-Santana challenged the two statutes [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] governing his citizenship, 8 USC §§1401 & 1409 [texts], on the grounds that they violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Because Morales-Santana’s father was the US-citizen parent, the statutes required that his father have previously lived in the US for at least 10 years, with five of those years coming after the age of 14. However, if Morales-Santana’s mother, instead of his father, had been a US citizen, she would only have to show that she previously lived in the US for at least a year at any point in her life. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] agreed with Morales-Santana’s claim and declared him a citizen. Judging from a 2010 case dealing with the same issue and the line of questions being asked, there will be at least four votes [SCOTUSblog report] to uphold the Second Circuit’s decision. During argument [transcript, PDF] on Wednesday, the Supreme Court was also analyzing whether declaring Morales-Santana a citizen was the proper remedy if the laws were found to be unconstitutional. No definitive option arose, although Justice Kagan offered a middle ground through issuing a ruling but staying judgment to permit Congress to change the statute.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case in June. Also this week the Supreme Court heard arguments in three other cases. In Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami [JURIST report], Miami brought a federal lawsuit against lenders Bank of America and Wells Fargo alleging violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) [text], but the cases were consolidated on appeal to determine whether a city could bring such a claim under the FHA. In Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Co., the Supreme Court will determine whether the presence of the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, is sufficient alone to confer federal jurisdiction. In National Labor Relations Board v. SW General [JURIST report], the Supreme Court is examining the extent of the president’s power to temporarily fill vacant agency positions.