Fact Check: "Denaturalization cases now pursued via civil litigation, lowering due process protections."
What We Know
The claim that denaturalization cases are now pursued via civil litigation, which lowers due process protections, is supported by recent developments in the Department of Justice (DOJ). In a June 2025 memo, the DOJ announced that it would prioritize denaturalization cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes, and that these cases would be pursued through civil litigation rather than criminal proceedings (NPR). This shift is significant because civil proceedings generally have a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases, and individuals in civil cases are not guaranteed the right to an attorney (NPR).
The DOJ's new Denaturalization Section, created to focus on revoking citizenship from individuals who obtained it through fraudulent means, has been noted to have a high success rate in previous cases (DOJ). The legal standard for denaturalization requires the government to demonstrate that the naturalization was "illegally procured" or obtained through misrepresentation (DOJ). However, critics argue that the shift to civil litigation diminishes the due process protections traditionally afforded in criminal cases, raising concerns about the constitutionality of these actions and their implications for the rights of naturalized citizens (NPR).
Analysis
The evidence supporting the claim comes from reliable sources, including official announcements from the DOJ and reputable news outlets. The DOJ's commitment to prioritize denaturalization cases through civil litigation is documented in their own communications, which outline the procedural changes and the rationale behind them (DOJ, NPR).
However, while the DOJ's actions are factual, the interpretation of these actions as a lowering of due process protections is more contentious. Legal experts, such as law professor Cassandra Robertson, have raised concerns that civil litigation for denaturalization lacks the same protections as criminal proceedings, potentially infringing on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (NPR). This perspective is bolstered by historical context, as denaturalization has been used in the past as a tool for political repression, particularly during the McCarthy era (NPR).
On the other hand, proponents of the DOJ's approach argue that denaturalization is a necessary measure to ensure that citizenship is not granted to individuals who have committed serious crimes or misrepresented their backgrounds (NPR). This highlights a tension between public safety concerns and the rights of individuals facing denaturalization.
Conclusion
The claim that denaturalization cases are now pursued via civil litigation, lowering due process protections, is Partially True. While it is accurate that the DOJ is prioritizing denaturalization through civil means, which indeed presents a lower threshold for the government and fewer protections for individuals, the broader implications of these changes are still being debated. The concerns raised by legal experts about the potential erosion of due process rights are valid and warrant further scrutiny as these policies are implemented.
