By DNExpress — Immigration Attorneys
On December 1, 2025, U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, a bill that would dramatically reshape how the United States treats dual citizenship. While the bill is not law, its proposal has sparked intense interest and concern among immigrants, dual-citizens, and the legal community.
Below we break down the bill in plain language, explain why constitutional experts believe it faces serious legal obstacles, and review two major U.S. Supreme Court cases that appear to conflict with its core provisions.
1. What the bill proposes
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 would ban dual or multiple citizenship for all Americans.
If enacted, the law would:
-
Prohibit dual citizenship going forward
No one could be a U.S. citizen while also holding any form of foreign citizenship.
-
Force current dual-citizens to choose within one year
Anyone who currently has both U.S. and foreign citizenship would have one year to:
-
Renounce the foreign citizenship, or Renounce U.S. citizenship with DHS.
-
Treat inaction as “voluntary relinquishment” of U.S. citizenship
If a person does nothing within the one-year window, the government would treat them as having voluntarily relinquished their U.S. citizenship.
This “deemed voluntary relinquishment” would be recorded in federal databases, and the person would be treated as a non-citizen under immigration law.
Who would be affected?
Millions of Americans, including:
- People born in the U.S. to parents from another country
- People who automatically receive another nationality through ancestry
- Naturalized U.S. citizens who retained their original citizenship
- Children with foreign-citizen parents
- Americans living abroad who acquired another country’s citizenship The reach is extremely broad.
Why constitutional scholars warn this bill may violate the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.”
For over 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that once citizenship is acquired, the government cannot take it away unless the individual chooses to give it up.
Two landmark Supreme Court cases directly address this issue.
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967): Congress cannot revoke citizenship at will
In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court held that:
- Citizenship is a constitutional right, not a privilege Congress can revoke.
- A U.S. citizen can only lose citizenship by voluntarily renouncing it.
- Congress has no power to force, presume, or manufacture a loss of citizenship.
The Court emphasized that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to put citizenship beyond the power of government to destroy.
This case is often described as the “Magna Carta” of American citizenship rights.
Vance v. Terrazas (1980): Expatriation requires both an action and the intent to relinquish citizenship
In Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court refined the Afroyim rule:
A person does not lose U.S. citizenship merely by performing an “expatriating act”
(such as obtaining a foreign passport or swearing allegiance to another country). Loss of citizenship requires:
- A voluntary act, and
- Intent to give up U.S. citizenship.
The government bears the burden to prove that intent.
This is important because the bill attempts to treat silence or inaction as evidence of voluntary intent. That conflicts directly with the standard set in Terrazas: intent must be shown, not assumed.
Why the proposed law conflicts with Supreme Court precedent
- The bill presumes intent where the Supreme Court requires proof
The bill treats someone as having “voluntarily relinquished” U.S. citizenship simply because they did not act within one year. But under Terrazas, citizenship loss cannot be based on:
- inaction,
- silence, or
- bureaucratic non-compliance.
The Court requires clear evidence that the person intended to abandon their citizenship.
The bill allows Congress to strip citizenship
Under Afroyim, Congress has no constitutional authority to revoke U.S. citizenship involuntarily.
The bill attempts to create a statutory rule where Congress can effectively force millions of citizens into expatriation, even if they never intended to give up citizenship.
“Deemed voluntary relinquishment” is likely unconstitutional
The phrase “shall be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished U.S. citizenship” is almost certain to be challenged. Courts look at actual intent, not labels Congress attaches to a legal consequence.
If the bill passed, would it survive in court?
Most constitutional scholars believe the bill would face immediate injunctions and years of litigation.
The most likely outcomes:
- Courts block its enforcement, finding it unconstitutional under Afroyim and Terrazas.
- The Supreme Court ultimately rules that Congress cannot strip citizenship based on a failure to renounce another nationality.
- Even if parts of the bill survived, the automatic-loss provision would likely fall.
In short: it is very unlikely that the U.S. government could constitutionally revoke the citizenship of millions of dual-citizens simply for “failing to choose.”
What dual-citizens should know right now
- The bill is only a proposal. It is not law.
-
- It must pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President.
- Many legal experts view it as almost certainly unconstitutional.
- Even if enacted, it would trigger immediate lawsuits and injunctions, which could delay or block any enforcement.
Our firm is monitoring the bill closely and will publish updates if it moves forward.
Final Thoughts
Citizenship is one of the most fundamental rights under American law. For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has consistently held that U.S. citizenship can only be lost by your choice, not by congressional mandate, bureaucratic deadlines, or legislative presumptions.
The Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025 raises profound constitutional and civil-rights issues. Anyone concerned about their status, or the status of family members—should stay informed and seek legal advice if the bill progresses.
