The U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy, Attorney General v. Mendoza-Martinez in 1962 dealt with the issue of citizenship and punishment without trial. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to revoke a person's citizenship as a form of punishment without providing them with due process rights such as a fair trial. This decision came about after two men, who had left the country during World War II to avoid military service, were stripped of their American citizenship under Section 401(g) of the Nationality Act which stated that deserting military service during times of war could result in loss of nationality. The court found this section violated both Fifth and Sixth Amendments' guarantees for due process and right to jury trial respectively.

In the dissenting opinion for Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Justice Clark argued that Congress had the constitutional authority to revoke citizenship as a penalty for desertion during wartime. He believed that this was not an issue of cruel and unusual punishment but rather one of national security and loyalty to country. The majority's interpretation, he felt, undermined Congressional power in matters related to war and defense. Furthermore, he disagreed with their view on what constituted 'punishment', arguing that loss of nationality could be seen as regulatory or remedial rather than punitive action by Congress against those who abandon their duty during times of conflict. Thus, according to him, it did not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights regarding due process or trial by jury.