Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schneider Vs. Rusk

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 18, 1964

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

38 entries 7 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Macintosh US Supreme Court · May 25, 1931
  2. Trop Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  3. Bolling Vs. Sharpe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1954
  4. Heim Vs. Mccall US Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1915
  5. Perez Vs. Brownell US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  6. Kennedy Vs. Mendoza-martinez US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1963
  7. Mackenzie Vs. Hare US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1915
    Relied / Followed
  8. U.S. 163 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Schneider v. Rusk
    Search
  9. U.S. 163 (1964) Schneider v. Rusk
    Search
  10. without regard to each factual violation. It is finally argued that Congress here, unlike the situation in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martnez
    Search
  11. Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  12. of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827 . And see Luria v. United
    Search
  13. Knauer v. United
    Search
  14. the citizen is nonexistent absent expatriation by the voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. See Perez v. Brownell
    Search
  15. not yet commanded a majority of the entire Court. Hence, we are faced with the issue presented and decided in Perez v. Brownell
    Search
  16. of citizenship ( Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  17. F.Supp. 302, 320. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  18. citizenship. Our cases have so interpreted such action for half Page 377 U. S. 170 a century. Mackenzie v. Hare
    Search
  19. approved the power of Congress to enact statutes similar to the one here stricken down. Beginning with Mackenzie v. Hare
    Search
  20. a)(1) as was urged in Mackenzie, namely, Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  21. At 239 U. S. 311 -312. And later, in Savorgnan v. United
    Search
  22. States, 338 U. S. 491 (1950), we approved the doctrine of Mackenzie, supra. Six years ago, in Perez v. Brownell
    Search
  23. Many times this Court has upheld classifications of more significance. Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  24. Terrace Page 377 U. S. 177 v. Thompson
    Search
  25. U. S. 197 (1923), and Porterfield v. Webb
    Search
  26. Clarke v. Deckebach
    Search
  27. U. S. 392 (1927) (aliens not permitted to conduct pool and billiard rooms). As in Mackenzie v. Hare
    Search
  28. section has suddenly become so invidious that it must be stricken as arbitrary under the Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court Schneider v. Rusk
    Search
  30. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martnez
    Search
  31. Luria v. United
    Search
  32. See Perez v. Brownell
    Search
  33. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  34. Savorgnan v. United
    Search
  35. Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  36. and Porterfield v. Webb
    Search
  37. Clarke v. Deckebach
    Search
  38. the Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial