Constitutional Law Keyed to Rotunda
Afroyim v. Rusk
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Afroyim (Plaintiff) was born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to the United States in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. Plaintiff went to Israel in 1950 and voluntarily voted in an Israeli election in 1951. In 1960, Plaintiff’s application to renew his U.S. citizenship was denied. His denial was based on the Nationality Act of 1940 (the Act), which states that a U.S. citizen shall lose citizenship if he votes in a political election in a foreign state. Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against Rusk (Defendant), the Secretary of State, in federal district court alleging that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that Congress does not have the power to revoke citizenship once acquired, and the only way one can lose citizenship is by voluntarily renouncing it. The court of appeals agreed with the district court’s rejection of Plaintiff’s arguments, holding that under Congress’ implied power to regulate foreign affairs, Congress has authority to revoke citizenship for voting in a foreign country.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.