Brehm v. Acheson

90 F. Supp. 662, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3852
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedApril 25, 1950
DocketCiv. A. 4926
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 F. Supp. 662 (Brehm v. Acheson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brehm v. Acheson, 90 F. Supp. 662, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3852 (S.D. Tex. 1950).

Opinion

KENNERLY, Chief Judge.

On June 11, 1948, Dean Aeheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America, moving under Section 801(e).,, Title 8 U.S.C.A., issued his certificate determining and adjudging that plaintiff, Mrs.. Elsie Brehm, who was born in the United States of America, had lost and forfeited; her nationality or citizenship in the United-States by violating such Section. 1

This is- a suit under Section 903 of such Title by plaintiff, seeking to have such certificate and adjudication set aside and vacated and a decree entered, declaring and adjudging that she, as a native-born national or citizen of the United States, still is a national or citizen of the United' States and that she still has all the rights and privileges thereof.

No question of jurisdiction or venue is raised. Defendant Aeheson, by his answer, denies in part and admits in part plaintiff’s, allegation. The sole and only question for decision is whether an election held in *663 Rodach, Germany, in which plaintiff indisputably voted, comes within the meaning •of such Section 801(e).

It has been stipulated:

“That the plaintiff, Elsie Brehm nee Elsie Brown was born in St. Louis, Missouri on February 12, 1912.

“That plaintiff married Otto Brehm, a citizen of Germany, at Lake Charles, Louisiana on February 8, 1932 and was issued an American passport on March 25, 1932.

“Plaintiff went to Germany with her husband in 1932.

“The Vice-Consul of the United States located in Munich, Germany wrote plaintiff a letter in 1934 which letter is attached to plaintiff’s first amended petition. 2

“That plaintiff executed an affidavit on the 11th day of March 1948 to the effect that she had voted in a local election at Rodach, Germany on January 27, 1946 as per exhibit attached to plaintiff’s first amended petition. 3

“That a certificate of the loss of the nationality of the United States was issued with the approval of the Department of State, Washington, D. C. June 11, 1948. Said certificate being delivered by registered mail to plaintiff under date of July 7, 1948 as per copy of letter and certificate attached to plaintiff’s first amended petition. 4

*664 “That plaintiff arrived in the United States at Mobile, Alabama on November 2, 1949 and was admitted temporarily for six months upon presentation of certificate of identity issued under Section 503 of the Nationality Act of 1940 [ 8 U.S.C.A. § 903], That between the year 1932 and November 2, 1949 plaintiff resided in Germany.

“That an actual controversy now exists between plaintiff on one hand and defendant on the other, plaintiff contending that, she is a native-born citizen of the United States of America and has never done or performed any act to expatriate herself therefrom; the defendant on the other hand contending that plaintiff expatriated herself by voting in the local election at Rodach, Germany as above noted.

“That Rodach, Germany is at all pertinent times in the American Zone of military occupation in Germany and was at the time of the election under American military occupation and control.”

In addition to such Stipulation, etc., the evidence shows that plaintiff at the time of such election was in the employ of the Mayor (Burgermister) of the Town or City of Rodach, Germany, and voted in an election held in such City for a Mayor and three Members of the Community Council of such City. Her testimony before the Court was the same as in her affidavit of August 30, 1949, offered by defendant. 5 *665 There is some suggestion that plaintiff was under duress, but the facts do not support that view. She was probably influenced to vote by reason of the fact that she was in the employ of the Mayor, but she was not under duress when she voted.

In a publication or book of 241 pages offered and admitted in evidence, styled “Occupation of Germany — Policy and Progress” issued by the Department of State of the United States for 1945 and 1946 (Publication 2783, European Series 23), 6 there are set forth the relations of the United States and Germany at the time such election was held, and it is made clear that the area in which the election was held was not a foreign state or territory within the meaning of Section 801(e).

1. My conclusion is that the election of January 27, 1946, at which plaintiff voted, was held in territory then ruled and governed by the United States and was held by permission and under the direction and by the authority of the United States. And that when plaintiff voted, she was not voting in a political election in a foreign state, nor was she participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory within the meaning of Section 801. A helpful case is Etsuko Arikawa v. Acheson, D.C., 83 F.Supp. 473.

Judgment will enter for plaintiff. Let proper decree be prepared and presented.

1

, Section 801(e) is as follows:

“A person who is a national of the United States; whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by:
“(e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.”
2

. Such letter is as follows:

“American Consular Service
“Munich, Germany, January 19, 1934
“Mrs. Elsie Brown Brehm,
“Alexandrinen Strasse 18,
“Kodach bei Coburg
“Dear Madam,
“I have your letter of January 18, 1934 with respect to the refusal of the police to grant a visa upon your American ■passport. There is in cases where an American woman marries a German the conflict between the law of the United States which permits the woman to retain her American citizenship, and the law of Germany, which holds the wife of ■a German citizen to be a German citizen, also. No German official will, therefore, recognize the validity of your American passport or put any endorsement on it, if he knows that you are married to •a German. Outside of Germany you ■could use your American passport but inside Germany, so long as there is no agreement between the two Governments about this conflict in their laws,' your American citizenship will not be recognized by the German authorities.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

LYONS
10 I. & N. Dec. 68 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1962)
Bisceglia v. Acheson, Secretary of State
196 F.2d 865 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
Acheson, Secretary of State v. Wohlmuth
196 F.2d 866 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
Furusho v. Acheson
94 F. Supp. 1021 (D. Hawaii, 1951)
In re Riedner
94 F. Supp. 289 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1950)
Kuniyuki v. Acheson
94 F. Supp. 358 (W.D. Washington, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. Supp. 662, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brehm-v-acheson-txsd-1950.