Skip to main content
SCOTUS Case

Fedorenko v. United States

Primary source

Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.

Background

Fedorenko v. United States

Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the citizenship status of Feodor Fedorenko , a naturalized citizen who had lied about his past as a guard at a Nazi death camp on his visa and citizenship applications. The court held that because Fedorenko lied on his visa application, his visa and citizenship were invalid. Fedorenko was a Ukrainian-born soldier who fought in World War II , was captured, and served as a guard at Treblinka extermination camp for over a year. He emigrated to the United States in 1949, lying on his visa application to cover up his time at Treblinka. He lived a quiet life in the U.S. for decades, but when the government became aware of his past, they initiated denaturalization proceedings against him in 1977, looking to revoke his citizenship. As a result of Fedorenko's eventual loss, he was deported to the Soviet Union and executed for treason and war crimes .

Fedorenko was one of many Nazi collaborators living quietly in the United States after World War II; at the public's urging, the government started investigating in the early '70s, but they were slow and ineffective, and when they filed suit to denaturalize Fedorenko, they did not properly prepare for trial. The District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled for Fedorenko, but the government – by then under better management – won at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals , which ordered Fedorenko's citizenship to be revoked. Justice Thurgood Marshall , writing for a 7–2 Supreme Court majority, upheld the appeals court's judgment, but did not endorse all of its reasoning.

The government argued that Fedorenko's citizenship should be revoked because it was gained "by concealment of a material fact"; the immigration law that Fedorenko used to enter the U.S. did not allow people who "assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations", so if Fedorenko had not lied about his past as a guard, he could have been denied entry. Fedorenko offered three defenses, based on duress , materiality, and equity . First, Fedorenko argued that the immigration law did not exclude him because he only served as a guard under duress; the district court accepted this argument, but the Supreme Court held that the law had no exception for duress. Second, Fedorenko argued that because he was forced to be a guard, his lie was immaterial under the court's ruling in _Chaunt v. United States _ (1960); he would have been let in either way. The government argued that Chaunt should be interpreted differently – an issue lower courts had disagreed on in the past – but the Supreme Court avoided answering the Chaunt question, holding that because Fedorenko helped persecute civilians, he was ineligible, so his lie was material. Third, the district court held that under the rules of equity, it had the power to rule for Fedorenko anyway because of his record of a quiet life in the U.S.; the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that if citizenship is gained illegally, the court has no power to stop denaturalization.

The Supreme Court's holding in this case helped the government in its other cases against suspected Nazi collaborators. However, the court was criticized for sidestepping the ambiguity of Chaunt rather than clarifying it. Scholars split on the issue of duress; some pointed to the district court's holding that if duress was not an exception, the act would bar Jewish _kapos _ from entry, while others agreed with the Supreme Court in finding that argument unconvincing. Justice Harry Blackmun concurred with the decision, but argued that the court should have applied Chaunt to the case. Two justices dissented; Justice John Paul Stevens argued against the court's interpretation of duress, while Justice Byron White argued that the court should have clarified Chaunt and remanded the case back to the appeals court to review the district court's findings. After Fedorenko's loss at the Supreme Court, he was deported to the Soviet Union in 1984; there, he pled guilty to war crimes in 1986 and was executed in 1987.

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedorenko_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedorenko_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Case")

Feodor Fedorenko after his escape to the United States in 1949

Jews being deported to Treblinka extermination camp, 1942

The aftermath of World War II saw many attempts by the United States and other Allied countries to resettle a large number of people who were displaced or made refugees by the war. In 1948, the United States government passed the Displaced Persons Act (DPA), which allowed a large number of war refugees to enter without counting towards their country's immigration quota . While the act made it easier for most refugees to enter, it did not cover all refugees; borrowing language from constitution of the International Refugee Organization , the act gave no help to:

  1. War criminals , quislings , and traitors .

  2. Any other persons who can be shown:

    (a) to have assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations of countries, Members of the United Nations ; or

    (b) to have voluntarily assisted the enemy forces since the outbreak of the second world war in their operations against the United Nations.

One person who came to the United States through the DPA was Feodor Fedorenko , a Ukrainian -born citizen of the Soviet Union . Fedorenko was drafted into the Red Army after Nazi Germany invaded the country in June 1941; within a month of being mobilized, he was captured by the Nazis . After moving through several prisoner of war (PoW) camps, Fedorenko was trained in early 1942 to be a guard. He was transferred to work at the [Treblinka extermina

Read the full Wikipedia article

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.