In the 1966 case Afroyim v. Rusk, Secretary of State, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The landmark decision was based on the case of Beys Afroyim, a Polish-born man who became a naturalized American citizen in 1926 but later moved to Israel and voted in an Israeli election. Under existing law at that time, his participation in a foreign political election resulted in him losing his U.S citizenship. However, when he tried to renew his US passport it was denied under Section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act which stated that voting in a foreign political election results into loss of nationality. The court's ruling overturned this provision stating it unconstitutional as per Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause because it violated Afroyim's right to keep his citizenship unless he voluntarily relinquished it.

The dissenting opinion in the AFROYIM v. RUSK case, delivered by Justice Hugo Black and joined by Justices Harlan and White, argued that Congress has the power to revoke citizenship of a naturalized American citizen who voluntarily performs an act showing allegiance to another country. They contended that this is not a punishment but rather a consequence of one's own actions. The dissenters believed that the majority misinterpreted both historical context and previous court decisions related to expatriation laws. They pointed out that there was no clear constitutional provision preventing Congress from passing such legislation, arguing it fell under their authority over naturalization matters as outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment rights being absolute and unassailable; instead asserting these could be relinquished through certain voluntary acts demonstrating loyalty to another nation.