In the case of Rabang v. Boyd, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1956, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a child born abroad to an American father and a non-American mother could claim citizenship if their parents were not married at the time of birth. The plaintiff, Rabang, argued that he should be considered a citizen because his father was an American citizen. However, according to immigration law at that time (Section 1993 of Revised Statutes), only children born out-of-wedlock to American mothers were automatically granted citizenship rights; this did not extend to fathers. The court ruled against Rabang stating that it is within Congress's power to decide who can transmit citizenship and under what conditions they may do so. Therefore despite being biologically related to an American citizen parent (his father), since his parents weren't legally married when he was born outside America - as per existing laws then - Mr.Rabang wasn't eligible for automatic US Citizenship.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rabang v. Boyd, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service argued that the petitioner should be considered a United States citizen by virtue of his father's naturalization before he reached majority age. The dissent believed that under Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, which states "a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States...whose fathers have been or may hereafter be at any time citizens thereof are declared to be citizens," Mr. Rabang was entitled to citizenship through his father's status as a U.S citizen when he was still underage. They disagreed with majority’s interpretation that this statute only applied if both parents were deceased or divorced with custody given to an American parent; they felt it could also apply where one parent had died while other lived but did not hold US citizenship - such as in Mr.Rabang’s situation where his mother (non-US citizen) survived after his father passed away.