Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

brand  the  applicant  as  someone  who  lacks  good  moral 
character”—and  so  are  not  generally  disqualifying. 
Kungys  v.  United  States,  485  U. S.  759,  780  (1988)  (quot-
ing Supplemental Brief for United States 12).  But under 
the  Government’s  reading  of  §1425(a),  a  lie  told  in  the
naturalization  process—even  out  of  embarrassment,  fear, 
or  a  desire  for  privacy—would  always  provide  a  basis  for 
rescinding  citizenship.    The  Government  could  thus  take 
away  on  one  day  what  it  was  required  to  give  the  day 
before. 

And  by  so  wholly  unmooring  the  revocation  of  citizen-
ship  from  its  award,  the  Government  opens  the  door  to  a 
world  of  disquieting  consequences—which  we  would  need 
far stronger textual support to believe Congress intended. 
Consider  the  kinds  of  questions  a  person  seeking  citizen-
ship confronts on the standard application form.  Says one: 
“Have  you  EVER  been  . . .  in  any  way  associated  with[ ]
any  organization,  association,  fund,  foundation,  party, 
club,  society,  or  similar  group[?]”    Form  N–400,  Applica-
tion  for  Naturalization  12  (2016),  online  at  http://www.
uscis.gov/n-400  (as  last  visited  June  20,  2017)  (bold  in 
original).  Asks another: “Have you EVER committed . . . a 
crime  or  offense  for  which  you  were  NOT  arrested?”  Id., 
at  14.    Suppose,  for  reasons  of  embarrassment  or  what-
have-you, a person concealed her membership in an online
support  group  or  failed  to  disclose  a  prior  speeding  viola-
tion.  Under  the  Government’s  view,  a  prosecutor  could 
scour her paperwork and bring a  §1425(a) charge on that
meager basis, even many years after she became a citizen. 
That  would  give  prosecutors  nearly  limitless  leverage—
and  afford  newly  naturalized  Americans  precious  little
Small  wonder  that  Congress,  in  enacting
security. 
§1425(a), did not go so far as the Government claims.  The 
statute  it  passed,  most  naturally  read,  strips  a  person  of 
citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during 
the naturalization process, but only when that act played