E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
I am puzzled by the fact that some commentators seem to think that
Rogers v. Bellei (1971) is not a problem for Ted Cruz. It seems to me to be a significant
problem for him.
In Bellei, the Supreme Court held—or at least clearly
affirmed—that a US citizen in Cruz’s precise circumstances (foreign birth,
American mother, alien father) was a naturalized citizen. The Court divided, 5-4, on whether the
plaintiff was naturalized "in the United States" or overseas, but all
nine Justices agreed that he was naturalized.
On many occasions, the Court has stated or implied that naturalized
citizens are not eligible to be president. In Schneider v. Rusk, for example, the
Court observed that “the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the
naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only
difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is
eligible to be President.” 377
U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964).
Likewise, in Luria v. United States, the Court wrote: “Under our
Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native
citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” 231 U.S.
9, 22 (1914). The Court
repeated this statement thirty years later in Baumgartner v. United States. See 322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) (quoting
Luria).
In short, Cruz may be ineligible to be president for two relatively simple
reasons: (1) naturalized citizens are not eligible; and (2) Cruz is a naturalized
citizen.
I am not sure yet whether I think this argument is sound, but it
does seem to be an argument that Cruz and his supporters will need to address.