you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The US government may only revoke passports for reasons of national security. Someone being behind on bills does not meet that criteria. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/280/

https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research/155/

"In Haig v. Agee, the United States Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to revoke a passport when the bearer's activities abroad "**are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States." **

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The Supreme Court can make up whatever bullshit they want. They just gutted the Voting Rights Act, why not this too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I did not get through the entire opinion, but don't think it says what you think it says.

    The question presented is whether the President, acting through the Secretary of State, has authority to revoke a passport on the ground that the holder's activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

    The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.

  • source
  • parent