Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Mackenzie v. Hare Et Al., Board Of Election Of San Francisco

• 1915 • 239 U.S. 299 • White Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Mackenzie v. Hare et al., Board of Election of San Francisco in 1915 revolved around the issue of women's suffrage and citizenship rights. Ethel Mackenzie, a British-born woman who had married an American man, challenged the constitutionality of a law that automatically revoked her U.S. citizenship upon marrying a non-U.S citizen and subsequently denied her right to vote despite residing in California where women were allowed to vote since 1911. The court ruled...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1915
Docket: 79
239 U.S. 299
36 S. Ct. 106
60 L. Ed. 297
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1462
Argued: Nov 11, 1915

Mackenzie v. Hare Et Al., Board Of Election Of San Francisco

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Mackenzie v. Hare et al., Board of Election of San Francisco in 1915 revolved around the issue of women's suffrage and citizenship rights. Ethel Mackenzie, a British-born woman who had married an American man, challenged the constitutionality of a law that automatically revoked her U.S. citizenship upon marrying a non-U.S citizen and subsequently denied her right to vote despite residing in California where women were allowed to vote since 1911. The court ruled against Mackenzie, upholding the Expatriation Act of 1907 which stated that any American woman who married a foreigner would take on his nationality status regardless if he was eligible for naturalization or not; thus affirming that she lost her US citizenship when she got married and therefore could not claim voting rights as an American citizen.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Mackenzie v. Hare, Justice Hughes argued that the law in question violated a woman's constitutional rights by automatically revoking her citizenship upon marrying a foreigner. He contended that this action was not within Congress' power to regulate naturalization because it did not involve an individual voluntarily renouncing their citizenship or becoming naturalized in another country. Instead, he viewed it as an involuntary forfeiture of one’s nationality without due process of law and thus unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he pointed out that men were not subjected to similar treatment when they married foreign women which made this legislation discriminatory based on gender.

Opinion written by Justice JMcKenna
Decided: Dec 06, 1915
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms