Justice Department directive broadens citizenship revocation amid narrowed judicial remedies and lack of legal counsel
Note: There are many stories coming out this week that have significant impact on fundamental freedoms. That’s why there are so many posts coming out this week. As always, please consult with an attorney familiar with your case before taking any action or developing a legal strategy.
WASHINGTON — On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an “enforcement memo” authorizing its Civil Division to aggressively pursue denaturalization proceedings against U.S. citizens across a broad range of categories. While framed as targeting serious criminal and national security threats, the directive permits action in cases far beyond terrorism or espionage and opens the door to expansive interpretations of civil fraud, administrative errors, and discretionary referrals.
The new policy, coupled with the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling in Trump v. CASA, significantly limits the ability of federal judges to address the application of the directive on a nationwide basis and sets the case up for a Supreme Court battle (if the Court agrees to take the case and not address a patchwork of inconsistent circuit opinions on the subject).
Because denaturalization is classified as a civil process, defendants — though still U.S. citizens at the time proceedings begin — are not entitled to court-appointed counsel. Legal experts warn that individuals may now be forced to defend their citizenship, and possibly their right to remain in the country, without any legal assistance.
The June 11 memo enumerates categories of conduct that can lead to denaturalization. These include:
Individuals posing a threat to national security, including those linked to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export of sensitive technologies;
Human rights violators, such as those involved in war crimes or torture;
Affiliates of transnational criminal organizations, gangs, or drug cartels;
Individuals who committed serious criminal offenses that were not disclosed during naturalization;
Those convicted of human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes;
Individuals who engaged in fraud involving U.S. government programs (e.g., Paycheck Protection Program or Medicaid/Medicare fraud);
Individuals who committed large-scale financial fraud against private entities;
Cases involving bribery, misrepresentation, or corruption in obtaining citizenship;
Cases referred by U.S. Attorney’s Offices in connection with other criminal charges; and
Any other case the Civil Division determines is sufficiently important to pursue.
While these categories appear specific, immigration attorneys caution that several are susceptible to broad interpretation. For example, allegations of fraud or misrepresentation can hinge on small omissions or inconsistencies in naturalization paperwork, often submitted years or decades earlier. There is no publicly available threshold for what constitutes a “serious criminal offense” or how “sufficiently important” is defined by the Civil Division.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA has further constrained the legal avenues available for affected individuals. The Court barred district courts from issuing universal injunctions, meaning challenges to the DOJ directive must now be pursued individually or through certified class actions. This fragmentation significantly raises the burden on civil rights attorneys and affected communities.
Historically, the federal government’s ability to revoke citizenship has been tightly constrained. In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), the Supreme Court held that denaturalization requires “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” proof. Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958) required that any actions used as grounds for revocation—such as foreign military service—must be proven to be voluntary. And Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) held that involuntary loss of citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Despite these precedents, the new policy signals a substantial shift in enforcement posture. The Justice Department has already secured several denaturalization orders in recent weeks. In one case, Elliott Duke, a former soldier convicted of child sexual abuse, was stripped of citizenship after a Louisiana court found he failed to disclose criminal conduct during naturalization. Another case involved an individual who committed financial fraud and was later found to have concealed that information during the naturalization process.
The policy’s potential for political misuse has also raised alarms. On June 27, just hours after CASA was decided, Rep. Andy Ogles (R–Tenn.) publicly called on the Justice Department to denaturalize Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman and admitted “Democratic socialist” mayoral primary winner. Ogles accused Mamdani of having possibly misrepresented his naturalization eligibility in 2018. Denaturalization in this case is unlikely, but note that Ogles’s statement shows how the policy can be invoked rhetorically as a political weapon.
For naturalized citizens, the implications are profound. The DOJ’s ability to review naturalization histories in conjunction with other federal investigations raises the possibility of retroactive scrutiny for a broad range of conduct, some of it only tangentially related to immigration. At the same time, CASA prevents any single court from blocking the policy’s implementation nationwide.
Legal advocacy groups are preparing to challenge the directive on constitutional grounds. Chief among their concerns are the lack of due process protections and the absence of appointed legal representation. Although denaturalization is civil in form, it carries punitive consequences comparable to criminal sanctions. Some attorneys are exploring whether a Fifth Amendment due process or Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim could be recognized by the courts, particularly in cases where the revocation could lead to removal.
If any of these challenges succeed in lower courts, they may reach the Supreme Court in its upcoming term, which begins October 2025. Depending on the pace of litigation, rulings on the constitutionality of the June 11 directive could arrive by spring or summer of 2026.
Until then, naturalized citizens — even those who have lived in the U.S. for decades — now face an enforcement landscape in which their citizenship status can be revisited, their legal protections are limited, and their access to representation is not guaranteed.
HOT TAKE
The Justice Department is now revving up to play \”Revoke That Citizenship,\” the home game, where you spin the wheel and—surprise!—that typo you made on your naturalization form in 1997 now means you\’re heading back to a country you haven’t seen since Clinton was playing sax on Arsenio. We haven’t seen paperwork taken this seriously since the IRS audited Al Capone and called it a victory for public safety.
I mean, I’m all for booting out war criminals and human traffickers, but “cases referred by U.S. Attorneys”? That’s like saying your fate depends on who’s having a bad week in the federal prosecutor’s office. You know it’s gotten weird when “citizenship” starts feeling more like a streaming subscription. Misplace one password and boom—you’re logged out of the country.
And don’t even get me started on Rep. Andy Ogles demanding to denaturalize a New York mayoral candidate. That’s not law enforcement; that’s political karaoke with a vengeance complex. If we’re handing out revocation cards every time a politician gets a thin-skinned ego flare-up, half of Congress better start brushing up on their embassy etiquette.
Bottom line? This isn’t citizenship—it’s citizenship with an asterisk. Like buying a car with a 30-year return policy… for the government.