2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) v United States, 16 the US Supreme Court agreed to review the case, granting writ of certiorari. ISSUES This case examined gender discrimination under the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and discussed appropriate remedies for removing gender discrimination. It also examined the US Government's obligations to prevent statelessness, particularly insofar as it results from gender discrimination. HOLDING The US Supreme Court agreed with the 2nd Circuit that §§ 1401 and 1409 of the US Immigration and Nationality Act contain elements of unconstitutional gender discrimination. It differed in its ruling, however, as to the correct remedy. 17 The majority decision, written by Justice Ginsburg, struck down the exception for unwed mothers, applying the ten-year rule to all US citizens living abroad. 18 REASONING This case involved a complex interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. This note will mainly focus on the aspects of the US Supreme Court's reasoning that touched on the problem of statelessness. As several of the constitutional questions ended up being highly relevant to the problem of statelessness, however, this note will also summarise the relevant constitutional questions. This case concerned the risk of statelessness stemming from gender discrimination. It also concerned the risk of statelessness caused by restricting access to nationality, although this issue was not mentioned in the decision. The problem of statelessness was first raised by the US Government. It argued that gender discrimination in the law served an important government interest, that of preventing statelessness. 19 The 2nd Circuit acknowledged that the ‘avoidance of statelessness’ served ‘an important government interest’, but rejected the argument that gender discrimination was necessary to reach that aim. 20 The US Supreme Court discussed the risk of statelessness arising from gender discrimination, though it did not expressly say that preventing statelessness serves an important US Government interest. The Court merely noted the importance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ #IBELONG campaign to end statelessness and discussed the role of gender discrimination in causing 16 Flores-Villar v United States, 564 US 610 (2011) (‘Flores’). Flores raised similar issues to the present case, but the Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the lower court, in this case the 9th Circuit decision, without taking up the merits. The 9th Circuit had held that the law was not unconstitutional, upholding an earlier US Supreme Court case, Nguyen v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 533 US 53 (2001). See United States v Flores-Villar, 536 F 3d 990 (9th Cir, 2008). 17 Morales-Santana v Lynch, 792 F 3d 256 (2nd Cir, 2015); Morales-Santana v Lynch, 804 F 3d 520 (2nd Cir, 2015); Morales-Santana (n 1) slip op 1–5. As stated above (see n 10), under current law, the physical presence requirement is five years. 18 Morales-Santana (n 1) 1–5. 19 Loretta E Lynch, Attorney-General, Petitioner, ‘Brief for the Petitioner’, Submission in Sessions v Morales-Santana, 15-1191, August 2016, 11. 20 Morales-Santana v Lynch, 804 F 3d 520 (2nd Cir, 2015) 531, citing Kennedy v MendozaMartinez, 372 US 144, 160–61 (1963); Trop v Dulles, 365 US 86, 102 (1958) (plurality opinion) (‘Trop v Dulles’). 332