In the Schneider v. Rusk case of 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was unconstitutional. The INA stated that naturalized citizens who resided for three years or more in their country of origin could lose their American citizenship. This law did not apply to native-born Americans living abroad for extended periods. The court held this as discriminatory against naturalized citizens, violating both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Angelika Schneider, a German-born woman who had become an American citizen through naturalization but later returned to Germany after her father's death, lost her U.S citizenship based on this provision. She challenged it before returning to America with her husband and children. The Supreme Court agreed with Schneider's argument stating that Congress does not have any power under the Constitution to strip someone off their citizenship without consent just because they live abroad.

In the dissenting opinion for Schneider v. Rusk, Justice Clark argued that Congress had a right to establish conditions on citizenship and its retention. He believed that the majority's decision undermined this authority by invalidating Section 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - which revokes U.S. nationality from naturalized citizens who return to their country of origin for an extended period - as unconstitutional. According to him, this provision was not punitive but rather aimed at preventing dual allegiances or conflicts of interest among American citizens abroad. Furthermore, he contended that it did not violate equal protection principles because it applied only to those who voluntarily chose to regain residence in their native countries after becoming U.S. nationals; they were not being discriminated against based on their foreign birth but due to their actions post-naturalization.