Opinion ID: 764897
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Citizens and Subjects

Text: 31 Matimak rejected the State Department's argument, which was identical to the argument presented to us, on the ground that Hong Kong corporations were not United Kingdom citizens according to explicit United Kingdom law. If they were not citizens, Matimak reasoned, they could not be subjects. We agree with Matimak that, in general, there is no difference between the way our federal courts deal with citizens and subjects: 32 In § 1332(a)(2) the terms citizen and subject do not connote a different degree of attachment or allegiance to a foreign state. 1 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.75 (3d ed. 1996); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 663-664, 42 L. Ed. 890, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898) (The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens. Moore, supra, ¶ 0.75. 33 Matimak, 118 F.3d at 85. 34 The two terms are identical in that they both describe a relationship between an individual and a sovereign power that suffices to confer alienage jurisdiction on a federal court. That the terms are identical for this specific purpose, however, does not mean that a sovereign must have only citizens or only subjects. See Walter C. Hutchens, Note, Alienage Jurisdiction and the Problem of Stateless Corporations, 76 Wash. U. L.Q. 1067, 1081 n.81 (1998). 35 British law does not clearly establish that the British Crown recognizes only one sort of sovereign relationship. Rather, British law, while silent on the crucial issue here, seems to recognize both citizens and subjects. The United Kingdom has by statute made natural persons who are citizens of Hong Kong or other British colonies subjects of the Crown. See British Nationality Act 1948, at 1. Hong Kong corporations are not covered by this statute, but the State Department's position is that Hong Kong's laws required Crown approval at the relevant time, and its Conclusion that Hong Kong corporations were thus ultimately subject to United Kingdom sovereignty seems eminently reasonable. We are concerned that, were we to decide that a foreign sovereign must choose between having citizens and subjects, we would be making a fairly significant foreign policy decision, and one that the State Department rejects. 36