2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) meaning that the interest of the US Government in preventing statelessness was only partially addressed. This gap was mirrored in briefs filed by amici curiae organisations. 31 Briefs by experts on statelessness focused on the role gender discrimination plays in creating statelessness, 32 but did not adequately focus on the danger of statelessness due to restricting nationality at birth. 33 Meanwhile, possible remedies were extensively discussed by scholars of constitutional law in a separate brief, but the risk of statelessness as a result of ‘levelling down’ was only mentioned in passing. 34 It is not clear to what extent these omissions influenced the Supreme Court’s failure to discuss statelessness as a result of ‘levelling down’, but the omissions mark an unfortunate missed opportunity to address the problem of statelessness as a result of restricting access to US nationality. These omissions are particularly glaring in light of the fact that the Dominican Republic, the country at issue in this case, has a large population of stateless persons who cannot pass on their nationality to their children. 35 Children born in the Dominican Republic to stateless persons and US citizens therefore must rely on the US citizen parent in order to gain a nationality. In choosing to ‘level down’, the majority erred, this case note argues, in failing to mention the right to a nationality at birth that finds support in US treaty law and norms, as well as US Constitutional law. The right to a nationality for children at birth is guaranteed by the ICCPR in art 24, which has been ratified by the US Government. 36 The US is not a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, but this treaty could have served as guidance to the Court in applying the ICCPR. 37 The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness supports the duty of states to prevent statelessness not only for children born in their territory, but also for children born abroad. 38 Article 4 states that: 31 See, eg, Equality Now et al, ‘Brief of Equality Now, Human Rights Watch, and Other Human Rights Organizations and Institutions in Support of Respondent’, Submission in Sessions v Morales-Santana, 15-1191, 3 October 2016 (‘Brief of Equality Now et al’); Scholars on Statelessness, ‘Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars on Statelessness in Support of Respondent’, Submission in Sessions v Morales-Santana, 15-1191, 3 October 2016 (‘Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars on Statelessness’). 32 Morales-Santana (n 1) slip op 25. ‘Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars on Statelessness’ (n 31) 9–10, cited in Morales-Santana (n 1) slip op 22. 33 ‘Brief of Equality Now et al’ (n 31) 30. ‘Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars on Statelessness’ (n 31, 20–8. 34 Ahmad et al, ‘Brief for Amici Curiae Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Citizenship, and Remedies Scholars in Support of Respondent’, Submission in Sessions v Morales-Santana, 15-1191, 3 October 2016, 16–18. 35 See generally Amnesty International, ‘Without Papers, I am No One’: Stateless People in the Dominican Republic (Report, 2015). 36 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered in force 23 March 1976) art 24(3) (‘ICCPR’). The US Supreme Court has long held that treaties make up part of US law. See Missouri v Holland, 252 US 416 (1920). Though the Senate included a reservation that the ICCPR is not ‘self-executing’, it is part of US law: United States Congress, ‘US Reservations, Declarations, and Understandings, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, 138 Cong Rec S4781 01 (daily ed, 2 April 1992) [II](a). 37 Consulting foreign and international laws as guidance in Supreme Court decisions is controversial, but for an example, see Justice Breyer’s arguments in Knight v Florida 528 US 990 (1999) (Breyer J), where his Honour cites, among other foreign and international sources, the European Convention on Human Rights: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) (‘European Convention on Human Rights’). 38 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 185 (entered into force 13 December 1975) art 1. 334