In an unbelievable decision the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 vote yesterday denied a San Diego man’s rightful claim that men are treated disparately due to a gender-based standard in immigration law.

The tie vote affirmed a 9th U.S. Court of Appeals judgment that the immigration law’s higher standard for determining citizenship for the children of men than it does for children of women is constitutional.

Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case, apparently due to her related work at the Justice Department.

Petitioner Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but raised in the United States by his father, a U.S. citizen. He challenged the gender-based standard to overturn his conviction for illegally re-entering the country. Flores-Villar v. United States , 095801 .

Thanks to the Supreme Court, Ruben, is not an American. Why, because he has a father who is U.S. citizen? Yet, if his mother had been a U.S. citizen her citizenship would extend to Ruben. If that’s not gender discrimination, discrimination against American fathers, discrimination against their children, and a blatant denial of equal treatment then what is?

The ACLU and other organizations strongly argued that the Supreme Court should overturn the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The ACLU article “In Flores-Villar v. U.S., Court Should Overturn Law That Discriminates Against Fathers “ explains that:

When a child is born to an unmarried U.S. citizen living abroad, the parent’s ability to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child turns on this question: was the child born to a U.S. citizen father, or mother?

If the child’s mother is a U.S. citizen, the child will automatically be a U.S. citizen at birth, so long as the mother previously had lived in the U.S. for one year, at any age.

But if only the child’s father is a U.S. citizen, the law mandates more: the father must legitimate or legally acknowledge his child and have resided in the U.S. for many more years, at an age set out by statute.

The law, originally enacted in 1940, is one of the few remaining in the U.S. Code that explicitly discriminates based on gender, and for that reason, has been the subject of a number of equal protection challenges. The Supreme Court first examined the legitimation requirement imposed on fathers in Miller v. Albright (1998), resulting in a splintered, plurality opinion. In 2001, the court revisited the issue in Nguyen v. INS, a case cocounseled by the ACLU, and upheld the legitimation requirement. In an opinion that has been widely criticized, the court found that the legitimation condition fulfilled the government’s interest in assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists, and that the father and child have a demonstrated opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship… READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Justice Kagan’s recusal was tantamount to a reaffirmation of the lower court’s decision. Either way, with or without her vote, this is an extraordinary decision reinforcing the notion, now legal precedent, that the law grants more rights to women than it does men. This horrendous decision clearly establishes that the Supreme Court of the United States thinks men are inferior to women.

The People of the United States won’t stand for crap like this much longer.

Harry Crouch

President, NCFM