The Schneider v. Rusk case in 1963 was a landmark decision by the U.S Supreme Court that ruled against a law which revoked the citizenship of naturalized citizens if they returned to their country of origin and resided there for three or more years. The plaintiff, Angelika Schneider, was a German-born woman who had become an American citizen but later moved back to Germany. Upon her return to the United States, she found out that her citizenship had been revoked under Section 352(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act due to her prolonged stay in Germany. In its ruling, however, the Supreme Court held that this provision violated both Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause as it unjustly discriminated between native-born and naturalized citizens while also infringing on their right to travel freely without fear of losing their nationality status.

In the dissenting opinion for Schneider v. Rusk, Justice Clark argued that Congress has the power to regulate naturalization and should be able to impose reasonable conditions on those who wish to become citizens of the United States. He believed that one such condition could be a requirement for continuous residence in order to maintain citizenship status. He pointed out that this case was not about punishing Mrs. Schneider but rather about her failure to fulfill an obligation she had accepted when becoming a U.S citizen - maintaining residency within the country unless serving national interests abroad as outlined by law. In his view, it was not unreasonable or discriminatory for Congress to expect new citizens like Mrs Schneider, who have voluntarily sought American citizenship over their native one, would show some degree of permanent allegiance through continued residence.