[3] The appellants, represented by Harold R. Tyler Jr., put forth three key arguments against the identified Sections of the 1952 Act: From the outset of the decision, the Court emphasized the “limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation”, citing previous cases that have recognized Congressional power to expel or exclude aliens as “a fundamental sovereign attribute” (e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, Fong Yue Ting v. United States).

[5] The Court was similarly unconvinced with the appellants’ attempt to apply stricter judicial scrutiny by claiming the discrimination within the statute (i.e., based on sex and illegitimacy) infringes on rights of citizens to familial relationships and denies due process.

[4] On April 26, 1977, the Supreme Court ruled against appellants Fiallo, Warner, and Wilson in a 6-3 majority with Justices Marshall, Brennan, and White dissenting.

[9] In 1999, as part of Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the United States Code, Congress enacted legislation reversing the Sections of the 1952 Act challenged in Fiallo.

[10] Fathers can now petition for their illegitimate child’s permanent residence, if they can prove a “bona fide parent-child relationship.”[10] No such burden of proof is put on mothers.