It’s the morning after Christmas. At dawn, a man rises from his bed and walks to the Charleston Harbor, not to admire it, but to throw himself in. Long depressed and resigned to the bottle, the man gives himself to his watery tomb.

Before he drowns, he sees light. Two brave rescuers pull him up out of the water. He cries, “I have a right to dispose of my own life as I please!” but his rescuers — two slaves — don’t listen.

The man who threw himself into Charleston Harbor was John Rutledge, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

This is the same man who, during the Constitutional Convention, said the Southern States wouldn’t sign the Constitution if it forbade slavery. And this was a man who, at one point, owned 60 slaves himself.

Eleven days before Chief Justice Rutledge attempted suicide, the Senate rejected his formal appointment to the Supreme Court, all because he delivered a speech admonishing President Washington, the man who nominated him to the Court, saying he would rather the President die than sign the Jay Treaty (referring to Washington).

Two days after his suicide attempt, he resigned from his position on the Court.

That was the fate of Chief Justice John Rutledge.¹

Talbot v. Janson is the final case he heard as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, before that grim December morning.

---

This is an admiralty and expatriation case coming out of South Carolina.

Petitioner: Captain William Talbot, an American who claimed to be French. (No, he was not an American study-abroad student who spent 5 weeks in Paris.)

Respondent: The Dutchman Joost Jansen², who had his ship captured by two Americans cosplaying as French.

This case went to the Rutledge Court during the Washington Presidency. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Jansen and denied Talbot’s writ of error.

See the Court’s opinion here.

---

Today, we’re going to sail through the facts so we can get into the fascinating legal discussion here about how somebody can shed their American citizenship, or expatriate.

We’ll also see that the Justices recognize dual citizenship, or the possession of citizenship in two countries at once.

Who says a case from 1795 isn’t worthwhile?

Okay, so a quick rendition of the facts.

It’s like this.

A Dutch guy named Joost Jansen (cool name) was sailing his ship home to Amsterdam when his ship was captured by a guy named Edward Ballard. Ballard then gave the ship to Captain William Talbot, who ultimately brought Jansen’s ship into South Carolina.³

The captors, Ballard and Talbot, were two dudes from Virginia who claimed to have left the United States and become French citizens.⁴

So, we have a kind of comical situation where two guys seem to be American but claim to be French, and they bring a Dutch ship into Charleston Harbor.

It really matters where these two guys had citizenship because the U.S. and the Netherlands were allies, whereas France and the Netherlands were enemies.

This meant that if Ballard and Talbot were Americans who captured a Dutch ship, that could be an international embarrassment and a threat to the peace between the two nations.

On the other hand, if Ballard and Talbot were French, this probably wasn’t the Americans’ business.

Upon arriving to the States, Joost filed a libel against Ballard and Talbot.⁵ Remember, in admiralty law, or ocean law, a “libel” is what we call the thing someone files to initiate his lawsuit.⁶

Jansen won in district court and then in circuit court, so the captors Ballard and Talbot were ordered to pay restitution.⁷

Thereafter, Talbot filed a writ of error with the Supreme Court, appealing his case to the Supreme Court.⁸

The Issue

This case boils down to whether Ballard and Talbot were American citizens, or French citizens.⁹

If American citizens, they screwed up by capturing the ship of an ally.

If French citizens, the Americans would probably have to punt the issue to France.

What Is Expatriation?

I think Captain Talbot’s lawyers do a great job in explaining what the right to expatriation is. (One of those lawyers is Alexander Dallas, the Supreme Court’s Reporter of Decisions, the same guy who wrote the very record of this very case.)

Dallas and his peers explain that people have a right to withdraw from a society when the society doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain.¹⁰ We’re lucky in the U.S. in that our feet aren’t nailed to the floor. We can pick up and leave if we wish. And, if we’re really not feeling it, we can renounce our American citizenship. We call this departure from society expatriation.¹¹

Expatriation differs from vacation, when you pack your bags and head somewhere sunnier for a long weekend. When you go on vacation, you’re simply leaving the country temporarily. The implication is you’ll come back. When you expatriate, however, the idea is you’re getting rid of your American citizenship in favor of a new home altogether.

Talbot’s lawyers lay it on thick, describing the right to leave one’s country as being “the law of nature and of nature’s God, pointing to ‘the wide world before us, where to choose our place of rest, and Providence our guide.’”¹²

How do you expatriate? Well, we have competing views here. Talbot’s position is he became a French citizen and stopped being an American citizen when he swore his oath of allegiance to France. He argues, “The act of swearing allegiance to another sovereign, is unequivocal and conclusive; extinguishing, at once, the claims of the deserted, and creating the right of the adopted, country.”¹³

The Court, however, takes a different view, ruling that more is needed for a person to expatriate. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Jansen.

The Opinions

Justice Paterson

Justice Paterson’s writing is shaving-cream smooth. His opinion is a joy to read.

Justice Paterson does three things here I want to talk about.

First, he considers whether Ballard, the first captor, ever expatriated from the U.S.

Second, he writes about expatriation, hanging some guiding stars in the sky for us to follow.

Third, he considers whether Talbot acted innocently.

Let’s start with Ballard. What did he do to expatriate? Well, he (1) went through the proper legal process to renounce his allegiance to the State of Virginia, and (2) declared his intention to expatriate. This isn’t enough, though. Putting aside awkward fact that Ballard renounced his Virginian citizenship, but not his American citizenship, Justice Paterson reasons Ballard is still an American who has not expatriated because “he did not become the subject of any other foreign nation.”¹⁴

Justice Paterson points out that the guy sailed from the U.S. “without so much as touching at any foreign port” and had “intention to return.” Ballard isn’t fooling Paterson, who declares, “Ballard was, and still is, a citizen of the United States…”¹⁵

So for Justice Paterson, the problem with Ballard’s claim of expatriation is he didn’t become a citizen of another nation.

In a kind of tongue-in-cheek manner, Justice Paterson writes “[U]nless, perchance, [Ballard] should be a citizen of the world. The latter is a creature of the imagination, and far too refined for any republic of ancient or modern times.”¹⁶ In other words, Justice Paterson argues, if somebody leaves his country, but does not attach himself to another, he is just a “citizen of the world”…which isn’t a thing.

Justice Paterson, though, humors the idea that one can be a citizen of the world so he can make a point about Ballard’s bad behavior. He says that even if one could become a citizen of the world, that kind of label would be reserved for somebody who was acting peaceably. Think traveling hippies, not criminals on the run.

If however, he be a citizen of the world, the character bespeaks universal benevolence, and breathes peace on earth and good will to man; it forbids roving on the ocean in quest of plunder, and implies amenability to every tribunal. But what is conclusive on this head is, that Ballard sailed from this country with an iniquitous purpose, cum dolo et culpa [with deceit and fault], in the capacity of a cruiser against friendly powers. The thing itself was a crime.“

Justice William Paterson

From this argument, Justice Paterson derives the following principle: “…an act of illegality can never be construed into an act of emigration or expatriation. At that rate, treason and emigration, or treason and expatriation, would, in certain cases, be synonymous terms. The cause of removal must be lawful; otherwise, the emigrant acts contrary to his duty, and is justly charged with a crime. Can that emigration be legal and justifiable, which commits or endangers the neutrality, peace or safety of the nation of which the emigrant is a member?”¹⁷

In other words, if you’re fleeing a country illegally, that’s not a legit act of expatriation.

Justice Paterson reasons that Ballard basically left the U.S. to act like a pirate, so that’s not legit expatriation.

Therefore, Ballard is an American citizen. That sucks for him. The whole weight of the Court can come down on him, and he’ll have to pay restitution.

Emigration doctrine

Justice Paterson recognizes that how one can expatriate from the United States is a new kind of question for the infant country. He writes, “Our situation being new, unavoidably creates new and intricate questions.”¹⁸

This inquiry leads to Justice Paterson dropping a bar, a poetic articulation of the fragility of federalism. Federalism is the form of government where authority is split between a nationwide government and smaller regional governments, with each having its own responsibilities. In the United States, that split is between the federal government and the State governments.

Justice Paterson writes, “We have sovereignties moving within a sovereignty. Of course, there is complexity and difficulty in the system, which requires a penetrating eye fully to explore, and steady and masterly hands to keep in unison and order. A slight collision may disturb the harmony of the parts, and endanger the machinery of the whole.”¹⁹

So, how does Justice Paterson suggest we resolve the expatriation issue? He says Congress should pass a statute.²⁰

In sum, Justice Paterson concludes that Ballard acted wrongfully, and he’s an American, so the Supreme Court can hear his case.²¹ What about Talbot, then?

Talbot

Justice Paterson decides not to analyze whether Talbot expatriated from the U.S., because Talbot’s conduct, regardless of his citizenship, was fraudulent.²²

Justice Paterson determines Talbot “acted in confederacy” with Ballard.²³ He paints them as two peas in a pod. “When on the ocean, they acted in concert; they cruised together, they fought together, they captured together. Talbot knew that Ballard had no commission; he so states it in his claim: the facts confirm the statement; for, about an hour after Ballard had captured the Magdalena [Jansen’s ship], he came up, and took a joint possession, hoping to cover the capture by his commission, and thus to legalize Ballard’s spoliation. How silly and contemptible is cunning—how vile and debasing is fraud!”²⁴

Justice Paterson concludes, “Talbot’s possession was gained by a fraudulent co-operation with Ballard, a citizen of the United States, and was a mere fetch or contrivance, in order to secure the capture. Ballard still continued in possession. The Magdalena, thus taken and possessed, was carried into Charleston.”²⁵

Justice Paterson affirms the circuit court’s decision.

Justice Iredell

Justice Iredell, like Justice Paterson, writes on the topic of expatriation in an effort to get a firm grasp of it.

He casts the right of expatriation as an important one, one that we are blessed to enjoy in the United States. Justice Iredell writes, “That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another; are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognise.”²⁶

At the same time, Justice Iredell writes that expatriation isn’t some unlimited right. He explains that some believe expatriation “is a natural, inalienable right in each individual; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legislature might impose dangerous restraints upon it; and of course, it must be left to every man’s will and pleasure, to go off, when, and in what manner, he pleases.”²⁷

But Iredell disagrees that expatriation is some holy right that can’t be qualified or restricted. He reasons, yes, citizens have rights, but they also have duties. As a citizen, one owes duties “to the society of which he is a member, and as a man, to the several members of the society, individually, with whom he is associated.”²⁸

With rights, the benefits of living in a society, come duties, the obligations that come with living in a society.

With all of this in mind, Justice Iredell reasons that a man should deal with his duties before riding off into the sunset. For instance, he should have to pay his debts before leaving, right?²⁹

On the character of expatriation, Justice Iredell concludes, not that it is an absolute right, a right that cannot be infringed or restricted in any manner, but a “reasonable and moral right” that shouldn’t be restricted for any reason other than whatever “the public safety or interest requires.”³⁰

So, Iredell is basically saying that the right to expatriate should be freely allowed, so long as there is no public safety or public interest demanding otherwise.

Okay, so expatriation is a right and a good. The next question is, how does one do it?

Here’s what Iredell thinks. “I do not think that merely taking such an oath [of an allegiance to another country], and being admitted a citizen there, in itself, is evidence of…expatriation, or completely discharges the obligations he owes to his own country…The act is complete, if he has legally quitted his own: if not, it is subordinate to the allegiance he originally owed.”³¹

Swearing an oath to another country isn’t enough. You have to wrap up your affairs in your prior country as well.

You can become a citizen of a new country, but you don’t shed your old citizenship just by leaving.

We’ll harmonize Justice Paterson’s view and Justice Iredell’s view in a moment. We have to stop for a second to look at something very, very interesting. If the Court is prepared to recognize that Talbot became a citizen of France, and still remains a citizen of the United States, we have here an acknowledgment of dual citizenship, the possession of two different citizenships at once.

Does this sound problematic to you? If so, you’re in good company with Justice Iredell. He recognizes that dual citizenship can get messy, and urges Congress to pass a law speaking to the expatriation issue. He writes, “Some disagreeable dilemmas may be occasioned by this double citizenship, but the principles, as I have stated them, appear to me to be warranted by law and reason, and if any difficulties arise, they show more strongly the importance of a law regulating the exercise of the right in question.”³²

Justice Iredell sees right through Talbot. He writes, “What is called robbery on the land, is piracy, if committed at sea.”³³ He then reasons whether it’s piracy or trespass, wrong is wrong, and Jansen had a right to have his case heard in the U.S..³⁴

Justice Iredell concludes, “There is no evidence to satisfy me, that [Talbot] ceased to be an American citizen, so as to be absolved from the duties he owed to his own country; and among others, that duty of not cruising against the Dutch, in violation of the law of nations, generally, and of the treaty with Holland, in particular.”³⁵

That’s a checkmate for Jansen.³⁶ These phony Frenchman owe him restitution for his ship.

Justice Wilson

Justice Wilson wrote only this:

“As I decided this cause in the circuit court, it gives me pleasure to be relieved from the necessity of giving any opinion on the appeal, by the unanimity of sentiment that prevails among the judges.”³⁷

That is hilarious.

Justice Wilson appears relieved at his conflict of interest, having ruled on the case in the lower court, and hackeysacks this case to the other judges.

Justice Cushing

Justice Cushing agrees with the other Justices, stating neither Ballard nor Talbot had the authority to capture Jansen’s ship.³⁸

He also reasoned that the United States had the right to order restitution here based on “every principle of justice, law and policy.”³⁹

As for the expatriation conversation, he contributes the following requirement: “The act of expatriation should be bona fide, and manifested, at least, by the emigrant’s actual removal, with his family and effects, into another country.”⁴⁰

Chief Justice Rutledge

The man from our opening stinger, Chief Justice John Rutledge, here delivers his final opinion on the Supreme Court.

Just as he did in United States v. Peters (1795), Chief Justice Rutledge writes with no shortage of bravado. He begins, “The merits of the cause are so obvious, that I do not conceive there is much difficulty in pronouncing a fair and prompt decision, for affirming the decree of the circuit court.”⁴¹

Okay. I’m glad it’s easy for you.

Chief Justice Rutledge does not contribute anything new to our modestly growing list of requirements for expatriation, but he does explicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of dual citizenship. He writes, “…a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”⁴²

He too rules in favor of Jansen.⁴³

The Decision

The Court puts forth a clear, four-pronged test for expatriation. They do so while urging the Congress to pass a law to clarify how expatriation ought to work in the U.S. of A.

Although the Supreme Court’s four-pronged test for expatriation doesn’t have the force of law because the Justices came to their respective decisions on different grounds, the test is interesting to consider.

According to the Court, you need four things to expatriate:

• (1) a renunciation of U.S. citizenship;
• (2) an actual, physical removal from the U.S.;
• (3) for a lawful purpose, and
• (4) the acquisition of a foreign domicile (which looks like hauling your family and your stuff into the foreign domicile).⁴⁴

Despite the 1795 Court’s urging that Congress pass a law detailing how a U.S. citizen can expatriate if he wishes, Congress hardly touched the issue of expatriation until the Expatriation Act of 1868.⁴⁵ Even then, though, the law didn’t address the requirements for expatriation the way the Court in 1795 would have wished.⁴⁶

There are other Supreme Court cases and laws that got us where we are today, and we will cover those cases in due time, but for now, we’ll flash forward to the present day.

Today, we have the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which puts forth nine ways to voluntary expatriate and shed your American citizenship.

1. Getting naturalized in a foreign nation after turning 18.
2. Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign nation “or a political subdivision thereof” after turning 18.
3. Enlisting or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation if that nation is “engaged in hostilities against the United States.”
4. Enlisting or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation as an officer.
5. Getting citizenship from a foreign nation and working for the foreign government after the age of 18.
6. Working for the government of a foreign nation after the age of 18, where working that job requires a declaration of allegiance.
7. Formally renouncing your nationality to “a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state.”
8. When the United States is at war, renouncing your citizenship through writing, subject to the Attorney General’s approval.
9. Committing an act of treason against the United States.⁴⁷

To be clear, you need one of those plus intent to relinquish your citizenship. If you take one of those actions, but have no intent to expatriate, that’s not enough.

What About Dual Citizenship?

The United States still allows for dual citizenship.⁴⁸

The State Department explains, “U.S. dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country (or countries, if they are nationals of more than one). They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals may result in conflicting obligations under the laws of each country.”⁴⁹

Final Reflections

This case rocked my world. This thing was written in 1795?

Talbot v. Janson contemplates a trifecta of issues that are raging hotly today: (1) citizens of the United States shifting their allegiance to foreign powers; (2) dual citizenship; and (3) how an American citizen might shed his citizenship.

We can debate whether the Supreme Court’s proposed test is any good, but I do admire the Justices’ efforts to try to formulate a bright-line rule to make adjudication of the expatriation issue easier.

A bright-line rule is a clear and easily applied legal standard that provides little room for interpretation or uncertainty. It relies on objective facts and clearly defined thresholds, allowing people to readily determine what is allowed and what is not allowed.

An example of a bright-line rule is the legal drinking age. There’s no wiggle-room or confusion there. If you drink while you’re under the age of 21, you’ve violated the law. If you’re 21 or older, you’re in the clear.

Isn’t every law a bright-line rule?

Allow me to sob into my cold soup.

Every law student wishes.

The opposite side of the coin is a law that manifests as a balancing test.

A balancing test is a flexible legal standard that presents multiple factors or considerations and leaves it to counsel and the court to weigh those factors to reach a just outcome.

For instance, in family law, we have something called the best interests of the child balancing test.

The idea is, when the court is trying to figure out a custody or visitation dispute involving children, the court is supposed to weigh multiple factors, which can be expressed as a list. In New York, for instance, these factors include:

• Each parent’s mental and physical health.
• Whether there has been domestic violence attributable to either payment.
• Which parent has been the primary caregiver to the child.
• What the child wants, considering the age of the child.
• Each parent’s strengths and weaknesses.
• Each parent’s schedule.
• The child’s relationships with other relatives, including siblings.
• Etc.⁵⁰

Rather than coming to a determination by following a formula or applying a strict test, the court is supposed to apply the balancing test, where some of these factors may carry more weight than others depending on the facts.

For instance, perhaps there is a serious threat of domestic violence overshadowing the other considerations, which results in the judge making her decision with that singular factor having more weight than the others.

Legal nerds have their preferences when it comes to which kind of test is best. Some prefer bright-line rules, arguing such rules result in fair and predictable decision-making. Others prefer balancing tests, arguing they allow for the judge to account for the variances that invariably arise from case to case.

I think the Justices had the right idea in this case, putting forth a bright-line rule. When we’re dealing with somebody potentially losing his coveted American citizenship, I think a test which promotes uniformity and predictability is the safest way to protect that sweet, sweet citizenship.

As for the larger debate about which kind of test is better, I think both tests have their utility. My opinion may change as we continue exploring Con Law, Chronologically.

What do you think? Leave a comment!

Studying this case for class? I offer 1-on-1, virtual law school tutoring. Learn more here.

Here’s a Bluebook cite for ya – Johnathan J. Azar, The Case That Gave Us Dual Citizenship: Talbot v. Janson (1795) (August 14, 2026)

FOOTNOTES

1. For sources pertaining to John Rutledge’s suicide attempt and resignation, see: History of the Court: The Rutledge Court, 1795, Supreme Court Historical Society, https://supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-courts/rutledge-court-1795/; Sarah Paxton, Top Ten Origins: Controversial SCOTUS Nominees, Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective (Oct. 2018), https://origins.osu.edu/connecting-history/kavanaugh-blasey-ford-thomas-garland-marshall-controversial-scotus-nominees; Leigh Jones Handal, John Rutledge: Beyond the Textbook Biography of South Carolina’s First President, Post & Courier (Jan. 26, 2026), https://www.postandcourier.com/news/john-rutledge-sc-president-history/article_13e78225-7fae-43cd-b6c3-09168cb4c4bd.html; John Rutledge, Nat’l Const. Ctr., https://constitutioncenter.org/signers/john-rutledge (last visited Aug. 12, 2026); Governor John James Rutledge, Jr., J.M. Moore III, https://www.jmmoore3.com/rutledge/governor-john-james-rutledge-jr. ↩︎
2. This isn’t a typo. The Court refers to this man as “Jansen,” but the case is captioned as “Janson.” We will adopt the same spelling as the Court (“Jansen”) throughout the body of this article. ↩︎
3. Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133, 133 (1795) ↩︎
4. Id. ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Libel (admiralty practice), The New International Encyclopædia (1905), https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_International_Encyclop%C3%A6dia/Libel_(admiralty_practice) ↩︎
7. Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133, 134-135 ↩︎
8. Id. at 133 ↩︎
9. Id. at 137 ↩︎
10. Id. ↩︎
11. Id. ↩︎
12. Id. at 140 ↩︎
13. Id. ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Id. at 153 ↩︎
16. Id. ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18. Id. at 154 ↩︎
19. Id. ↩︎
20. Id. ↩︎
21. Id. ↩︎
22. Id. ↩︎
23. Id. at 155 ↩︎
24. Id. at 156 ↩︎
25. Id. ↩︎
26. Id. at 162 ↩︎
27. Id. ↩︎
28. Id. ↩︎
29. Id. ↩︎
30. Id. at 163 ↩︎
31. Id. ↩︎
32. Id. at 165 ↩︎
33. Id. at 160 ↩︎
34. Id. at 161 ↩︎
35. Id. at 165 ↩︎
36. Id. at 167 ↩︎
37. Id. at 168 ↩︎
38. Id. ↩︎
39. Id. at 168-169 ↩︎
40. Id. at 169 (emphasis added) ↩︎
41. Id. ↩︎
42. Id. ↩︎
43. Id. ↩︎
44. Id. at 133 ↩︎
45. 15 Stat. 223 ↩︎
46. Id. ↩︎
47. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (2024). ↩︎
48. U.S. Dep’t of State, Dual Nationality, Travel.State.Gov, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Relinquishing-US-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html (last visited Aug. 14, 2026). ↩︎
49. Id. ↩︎
50. New York State Unified Court System, Best Interest of the Child, https://www.nycourts.gov/help/family-issues-divorce/best-interest-child (last visited Aug. 14, 2026). ↩︎

Disclaimer: All content on Lex Sans Latin is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing on this site creates an attorney–client relationship. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney.

This blog may include quotations or excerpts from judicial opinions, statutes, scholarly articles, books, and other primary or secondary sources. Such materials are used for purposes of commentary, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research in accordance with the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107). All cited materials are attributed to their original sources to the extent reasonably possible.

Any tutoring or instructional services offered are educational in nature and are not a substitute for legal advice or legal representation.