HR-7156-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Tom Emmer (R-MN)
What it does
This bill would expand the legal grounds under which the federal government can pursue civil proceedings to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans. Specifically, it would allow denaturalization if a person, within 10 years of naturalization, associates with a designated foreign terrorist organization, commits fraud against a federal, state, local, or tribal government program totaling at least $10,000, or is convicted of an aggravated felony or espionage offense. The bill would also make denaturalization retroactive to the original date of naturalization and subject denaturalized individuals to expedited removal proceedings regardless of how much time has passed.
Who benefits
The general public and national security interests, to the extent that removing citizenship from individuals who commit serious crimes or affiliate with terrorist organizations deters such conduct. Federal, state, local, and tribal governments that administer public benefit programs and are targets of fraud. Victims of crimes committed by individuals who would be subject to denaturalization. Law enforcement agencies, which would gain an additional legal tool — the Attorney General — to initiate denaturalization proceedings alongside U.S. Attorneys.
Who is hurt
Naturalized citizens broadly, who would face a category of legal jeopardy that native-born citizens do not — since native-born citizenship cannot be revoked. Naturalized citizens convicted of qualifying offenses who, after serving criminal sentences, could additionally lose citizenship and face deportation. Family members (including U.S.-born children) of denaturalized individuals, who could face family separation. Immigrants from countries with weak rule of law who may have fled persecution and could face danger if removed. Naturalized citizens who committed qualifying acts but whose cases involve disputed facts, given that the bill treats conviction or admission as "prima facie and sufficient evidence" of bad character at the time of naturalization — potentially limiting judicial discretion. Legal aid organizations and immigration courts, which would face increased caseloads.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that naturalization is a conditional privilege requiring demonstrated good moral character, and that individuals who commit terrorism-related offenses, large-scale government fraud, or aggravated felonies within a decade of naturalization have effectively proven they never met that standard. They contend that the bill closes a gap in existing law identified in Castillo v. Bondi (6th Cir. 2025), where a concurring judge argued that Costello v. INS (1964) was wrongly decided and that post-naturalization conduct should be usable as evidence of pre-naturalization character defects. They further argue that the $10,000 fraud threshold and 10-year window are reasonable limits that target only serious, deliberate misconduct.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a two-tiered citizenship system in which naturalized Americans hold permanently conditional status compared to native-born citizens — a distinction the Supreme Court has historically disfavored, as noted in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), which held that Congress cannot strip citizenship without the citizen's consent. They contend that using post-naturalization conduct as automatic "prima facie and sufficient evidence" of pre-naturalization bad character is a legal fiction that bypasses the individualized inquiry courts have traditionally required, and that the expedited removal provision — stripping judicial review of immigration status after denaturalization — raises serious Due Process concerns under the Fifth Amendment and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress broad authority to set the terms of citizenship, but the Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) — building on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — held that Congress cannot involuntarily strip citizenship. The bill's mechanism of using post-naturalization conduct as retroactive evidence of pre-naturalization fraud attempts to work within existing denaturalization doctrine (Johannessen v. United States, 1912; United States v. Ginsberg, 1917), but the automatic "prima facie and sufficient evidence" standard and expedited removal provision raise Fifth Amendment Due Process questions, particularly given Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Attorney General) gains new authority to initiate denaturalization proceedings; checks include federal court review of civil denaturalization cases, the severability clause, and the bill's own fallback provision reducing the 10-year window to 5 years if courts strike down the longer period.
Historical precedent
Denaturalization proceedings have historically been used in cases of fraud at the time of naturalization, most notably against Nazi war criminals under the Holtzman Amendment (1978) and the work of the Office of Special Investigations, but no prior federal statute has explicitly used post-naturalization criminal conduct as automatic retroactive evidence of pre-naturalization character defects at this scale.