1 Edwards v. Carter, 445 F.Supp. 1979 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d, 580 F.2d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert, denied, 436 U.S. 907 (1978), rehearing denied, 580 F.2d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1978), [1978] Digest at 665–73; Mease v. Heinz, 80 F.R.D. 119 (E.D. Pa. 1978), [1978] Digest at 698; Smith v. Eagleton, 455 F.Supp. 403 (W.D. Mo. 1978), [1978] Digest at 697.

2 Of general interest is the case of Matter of Davis in which the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision of an immigration judge, holding that a former citizen of the United States, who had formally renounced his nationality pursuant to section 401(f) of the Nationality Act of 1940 to become a “world citizen,” was excludable as an immigrant without visa pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)20, Interim Decision 2650, 16 B.I.A. 514, [1978] Digest at 242–47, aff’d, Davis v. District Director, Immigration, etc. 481 F.Supp. 1178 (D.D.C. 1979). The standard of proof required to find voluntary expatriation by a person having dual nationality at birth and the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. §1481(c) were at issue in Terrazas v. Vance, 577 F.2d 7 (7th Cir. 1978), [1978] Digest at 239–42. The holding in that case, which faulted the statutory standard on constitutional grounds, subsequently was reversed by the Supreme Court in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, rehearing denied, 445 U.S. 920 (1980), and resulted ultimately in a finding of expatriation, Terrazas v. Muskie, 494 F.Supp. 1017 (N.D. Ill. 1980), aff’d, 653 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1981).

3 Noteworthy among these cases were those involving the right to tuition–free schooling of children having the status of undocumented aliens and those of entrants seeking asylum. The first category is represented by Doe v. Plyler, 458 F.Supp. 569 (E.D. Tex. 1978), [1978] Digest at 288–98, aff’d, 628 F.2d 448 (1980), prob. juris, noted, 101 S.Ct. 2044, argued 12/1/81, 50 U.S.L.W. 3457 (1981). For a companion case, see In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544 (S.D. Tex. 1980), C. A. stay dissolved, 448 U.S. 1327 (1980), aff’d, 50 U.S.L.W. 3098, prob. juris, noted, 101 S.Ct. 2044, argued 50 U.S.L.W. 3457 (1981). Judge Seals in the companion case discussed at length the international law aspects, 501 F.Supp. 544 at 589–96. The second category is represented by Sannon v. United States, 460 F.Supp. 458 (S.D. Fla. 1978), [1978] Digest at 355–64, a decision which subsequently was ordered to be vacated and replaced by dismissal as moot, 631 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir. 1980). For a companion case, see Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442 (S.D. Fla. 1978), app. pending sub nom. Smith v. Haitian Refugee Center.

4 United States v. Enger, 472 F.Supp. 490 (N.N.J. 1978), [1978] Digest at 93–107; United States v. Humphrey & Truong, 456 F.Supp. 51 (E.D. Va. 1978), [1978] Digest at 123–24, aff’d sub nom. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), cc. Chagnon v. Bell, 642 F.2d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1980). For the final disposition of the case against Humphrey and Truong Dinh Hung, see 50 U.S.L.W. 3547 (cert, denied) and Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1982.

5 [1978] Digest at 883–914, containing excerpts from United Euram Corporation v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 461 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Yessenin–Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency, 443 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, 461 F.Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1978); Gray v. Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of the Congo to the United Nations, 443 F.Supp. 816 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), aff’d, 581 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1978); 40 D 6262 Realty Corp. v. United Arab Emirates, 447 F.Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Jet Line Services, Inc. v. M/V. Marsa El Hariga et al., 462 F.Supp. 1165 (D. Md. 1978); Ipitrade Int’l v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 465 F.Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1978); Carey v. National Oil Corp., 453 F.Supp. 1097 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), aff’d, 592 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1979); Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d, 607 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

6 In addition to the case cited infra note 7, see Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel, supra note 5, and Letelier v. Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980), 502 F.Supp. 259 (D.D.C. 1980).

7 448 F.Supp. 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), affd, 597 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1979), [1978] Digest at 914–19.

8 See the detailed factual discussion in Texas Trading v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1981), and especially the list of foreign cases, id. at n.15.

9 [1978] Digest at 827–50, including United States v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1978). The holding of the court of appeals with respect to foreign flag vessels in United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1979), and United States v. Williams, 617 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1980), is criticized in my Editorial Comment, 74 AJIL 892 (1980).

10 434 U.S. 308 (1978), [1978] Digest at 804.

11 [1978] Digest at 811.

12 The text of the German note (Dept. of State File No. P82 0010–1873) and the concerns of the Department about the compatibility of the proposed legislation with treaty obligations unfortunately are not included in the excerpt from the testimony.

13 [1978] Digest at 1027–70, 1682–83. See also pp. 655–73, 697–700 (constitutionality); pp. 700–04 (effect on third parties); pp. 674–77 (exchange of ratifications).

14 Id. at 689–94, 729–34, and 1053–56.

15 Id. at 70–72, 734.

16 Id. at 73–75, 734–65.

17 Id. at 1541–60. For the text of the Peace Treaty of March 26, 1979, see Dept. State Bull., No. 2026, May 1979, at 3–15.