Trop v. Dulles

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Criminal Law

Criminal Lawcitizenshipdenationalizationstatelessnesswartime desertionEighth Amendmentcruel and unusual punishmentpunishment

Facts

Petitioner was a native-born American serving as a private in the United States Army in French Morocco in 1944. He escaped from a stockade in Casablanca, was gone less than a day, and was picked up while walking back toward his base; he testified that he had decided to return because he and his companion were cold, hungry, and had little money. A general court-martial convicted him of desertion and sentenced him to three years at hard labor, forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. In 1952, his passport application was denied because § 401(g) provided that a person convicted of wartime desertion and dishonorably discharged lost his citizenship.

Issue

May Congress, consistently with the Constitution, strip a native-born American of citizenship under § 401(g) as a consequence of conviction and dishonorable discharge for wartime desertion? More specifically, does denationalization imposed for that crime constitute punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment?

Rule

Denationalization imposed as punishment for crime is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. In determining whether a statute is penal, the Court looks to substance and legislative purpose: if a disability is imposed to punish the wrongdoer rather than to accomplish some other legitimate governmental purpose, it is a penal law. The Eighth Amendment draws meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute providing that any United States citizen convicted in federal court of sabotaging military equipment during a declared war automatically loses citizenship upon release from prison. Maya Torres, a native-born citizen from Phoenix, is convicted under the statute and later challenges the citizenship-stripping provision.

How should a court rule on Maya's challenge under the lead opinion's reasoning?

Explanation. The lead opinion treats denationalization used as punishment for crime as barred by the Eighth Amendment. Even where the underlying offense is grave, the question is not merely proportionality to the offense; the Court held that loss of citizenship is a constitutionally forbidden type of punishment because it destroys the individual's status in organized society and leaves the person stateless. Serious wartime misconduct does not save the sanction.