Opinion of FRANKFURTER, J.

307 U.S.

and artificial legal concepts. Especially important is it to abstain from intervention within the autonomous area of the legislative taxing power where there is no claim of encroachment by the states upon powers granted to the National Government. It is not for us to sit in judgment on attempts by the states to evolve fair tax policies. When a tax appropriately challenged before us is not found to be in plain violation of the Constitution our task is ended.

Chapter 236 of the New Jersey Laws of 1918, as applied to the circumstances of these two cases, clearly does not offend the Constitution. In substance, such legislation has heretofore been found free from constitutional infirmity. Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks, 253 U. S. 325, affirming 41 N. Dak. 330; 170 N. W. 863. During all the vicissitudes which the so-called "jurisdiction-to-tax" doctrine has encountered since that case was decided, the extent of a state's taxing power over a corporation of its own creation, recognized in the Cream of Wheat case, has neither been restricted nor impaired. That case has not been cited otherwise than with approval. Questions affecting the fictional "situs" of intangibles, which received full consideration in Curry v. McCanless, post, p. 357, do not concern the present controversies. Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks, supra, and the cases that have followed it, afford a wholly adequate basis for affirming the judgments below.

2 See Citizens National Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99, 109; Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U. S. 88, 92; Baker v. Druesedow, 263 U. S. 137, 141; Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 273 U. S. 407, 413; Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 U. S. 233, 238; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Emmerson, 277 U. S. 573; Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379, 391; Nebraska ex rel. Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Marsh, 282 U. S. 799, 800; First Bank Stock Corp v. Minnesota, 301 U. S. 234, 237.

Syllabus.

PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. v. ELG.*

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 454. Argued February 3, 1939. Decided May 29, 1939.

1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 328.

2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 329.

3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 329.

4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 329.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 334.

5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 335. 6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . ." was aimed at voluntary expatriation and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 342.

* Together with No. 455, Elg v. Perkins, Secretary of Labor, et al., also on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.

7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship, can not be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 349. 8. Threats of deportation by the Secretary of Labor and immigration officials, and refusal by the Secretary of State to issue a passport, upon the disputed ground that the person affected has lost his native citizenship and become an alien wrongfully in the country, involve an actual controversy affording basis for a suit for a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen and for an injunction. P. 349.

9. In such a suit, the Secretary of State is properly included in the declaratory provision of the decree, that he may be precluded from refusing to issue the passport solely upon the ground that the citizenship has been lost. Id.

69 App. D. C. 175; 99 F. 2d 408, modified and affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 305 U. S. 591, to review the affirmance of a decree sustaining, as to the Secretary of State, and overruling, as to the Secretary of Labor and the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, a bill brought by Marie Elizabeth Elg for a declaratory decree establishing her status as an American citizen, and for injunctive relief against the respondents. There were cross appeals to the court below.

Mr. Henry F. Butler for Elg.

Solicitor General Jackson, with whom Assistant Attorney General McMahon, and Messrs. William W. Barron, William J. Connor, and Green H. Hackworth were on the brief, for Perkins, Secretary of Labor, et al.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired of an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that if she returned after attaining majority she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since.

In April, 1935, Miss Elg was notified by the Department of Labor that she was an alien illegally in the United States and was threatened with deportation. Proceedings to effect her deportation have been postponed from time to time. In July, 1936, she applied for an American passport but it was refused by the Secretary of State upon the sole ground that he was without authority to issue it because she was not a citizen of the United States.

Thereupon she began this suit against the Secretary of Labor, the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and the Secretary of State to obtain (1) a declaratory judgment that she is a citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and (2) an injunction against the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration restraining them from prosecuting proceedings for her deportation, and (3) an injunction against the Secretary of State from refusing to issue to her a passport upon the ground that she is not a citizen.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of the Naturalization Convention and Protocol of 1869 (proclaimed in 1872) between the United States and Sweden (17 Stat. 809) and the Swedish Nationality Law, and § 2 of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, 8 U. S. C. 17. The District Court overruled the motion as to the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration and entered a decree declaring that the plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States but directing that the complaint be dismissed as to the Secretary of State because of his official discretion in the issue of passports. On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. 69 App. D. C. 175; 99 F. 2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938.

First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,