Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Afroyim v. Rusk

Afroyim v. Rusk
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests. 
 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page. 

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/February 20, 2014 by BencherliteTalk 00:21, 29 January 2014‎ (UTC)



Afroyim v. Rusk is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that American citizens may not be deprived of citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government tried to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim (pictured with his son), who had voted in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized American citizen, but the court decided that his right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It overruled Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances. Afroyim opened the way for a wider acceptance of multiple citizenship in American law. Its impact was narrowed by Rogers v. Bellei (1971), which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply in all cases, but the specific law in that case was repealed in 1978. The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which sought to limit dual citizenship—were abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that they had been rendered unenforceable. As a consequence of revised government policies adopted in 1990, it is now "virtually impossible" to lose American citizenship involuntarily.
 * Promoted one year ago, promoted in December 2012 = 1 point.
 * A similar article has not been at TFA within 3 months of requested date = 1 point.
 * Date relevance: Date argued before Supreme Court of the United States = 1 point.
 * Total points = 3 points.
 * NOTE: Please note that regardless of points, it's a high quality, educational, encyclopedic, and important article about a key point in history that would educate visitors to the page.


 * Support. Educational, and encyclopedic. Helps inform readers about the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I moved it to 20 February when it's relevant, per suggestion by, diff. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this for this date, as relevant (the date argued before SCOTUS), and per Cirt-informative and illuminating on a topic of American constitutional jurisprudence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, your Support is most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've rejigged the blurb (1,196 characters) to include material from the third paragraph of the lead and changed the image to something that I think will work better on the main page at blurb size. BencherliteTalk 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The blurb now includes quite a few dates, but doesn't say when the decision was actually made! Ypnypn (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point! Added. BencherliteTalk 23:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for this help, above, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)