PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND DEMAND FOR REGULATORY AMENDMENT, Medicare/Medicaid

By ftsig-admin | June 8, 2026

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND DEMAND FOR REGULATORY AMENDMENT
DATE: ______________

TO:

The Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
The Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

RE: Fatal Structural Vagueness, Ultra Vires Incorporation of the Law of Nations, State Sovereignty Violations under Coyle v. Smith, and the Regulatory Oxymoron within 42 C.F.R. § 435.4

Dear Attorney General and Secretary of Defense,

This petition demands an immediate federal investigation into the structural, linguistic, and constitutional subversion executed within 42 C.F.R. § 435.4, the regulation dictating eligibility parameters for state-administered Medicaid programs. By failing to use proper statutory terms and creating a logical oxymoron, this regulation violates the Void for Vagueness doctrine, exceeds administrative authority (ultra vires), infringes upon state sovereignty under Coyle v. Smith (1911), and violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as anchored to the common law jus soli and “natural-born” equal footing doctrines recognized in Minor v. Happersett (1874) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). [1, 2]

I. The Core Statutory Failure: “Citizen” vs. “Citizen of the United States”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress chose not to create a standalone definition for the word “citizen.” Instead, Title 8 strictly defines and relies upon the precise legal term of art: “Citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)(A).

However, in drafting 42 C.F.R. § 435.4, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broke away from the INA. The text of the regulation states:

“Citizenship includes status as a ‘national of the United States,’ and includes both citizens of the United States and noncitizen nationals…”

By introducing the separate, un-statutory term “citizen” into its definitions, the regulation separates itself from the explicit confines of Title 8.

II. Unlawful Overreach and the “Alien national of the United States” Oxymoron

Because the regulation uses the bare term “citizen” separate from “Citizen of the United States,” it mistakenly loops in external statutory and international frameworks, including 22 U.S.C. § 456(f) and the classical Law of Nations (LON):

  1. Under 22 U.S.C. § 456(f), a “citizen” is broadly defined as anyone who simply owes allegiance to the United States. This captures the temporary allegiance owed by any foreign national residing within the exclusive and not subject matter jurisdiction of Congress.
  2. Conversely, under the international Law of Nations, an individual who owes merely temporary territorial allegiance is strictly classified as an alien.
  3. Under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21), a “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state (any foreign sovereign), whereas 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) defines a “national of the United States” as one owing permanent allegiance exclusively to the national sovereignty sovereign.

By writing the hybrid phrase “alien national of the United States,” 42 C.F.R. §435.4 creates a structural oxymoron. It defines a category that literally translates to: an alien (who holds no U.S. allegiance) who is simultaneously a national of the United States (owing permanent U.S. allegiance). The regulation confuses a foreign national’s allegiance to an external state under subsection (a)(21) with a national of the United States’ allegiance under subsection (a)(22), creating an impossible legal definition:

Citizen = Person Owing Allegiance = Alien

III. Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Common Law Jus Soli, and the “Natural-Born” Equal Footing Doctrine [3]

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court recognized the foundational “natural-born citizen” baseline—those born in a country to parents who are its citizens—who enter the social compact at birth with an inherent, permanent allegiance. [3, 4]

Crucially, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court firmly established that the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the ancient English common law doctrine of jus soli (birthright citizenship by the law of the soil). The Court confirmed that the jus soli doctrine operates on a baseline of equal footing within the sovereign State. Anyone born under the territorial jurisdiction and flag of the United States automatically acquires the status of a Citizen of the United States, independent of their parents’ alienage or temporary status. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]

By utilizing a fractured, un-statutory vocabulary, 42 C.F.R. § 435.4 subverts this constitutional framework. It treats individuals who are entitled to the full constitutional status of a Citizen of the United States—or those recognized as a national of the United States owing permanent allegiance—as if they can be demoted by administrative decree. By redefining a person who holds or owes allegiance as an “alien,” the regulation effectively creates a synthetic, administrative class of “non-protected citizens.” This actively bypasses the absolute commands of the Fourteenth Amendment and the common law jus soli standard, denying individuals the reciprocal protections that the federal government is constitutionally mandated to provide to all who stand on an equal footing. [7]

IV. Infringement on State Sovereignty (Coyle v. Smith)

Under the doctrine established in Coyle v. Smith (1911), individual States within the Union retain a “residuum of sovereignty” that the federal government cannot strip away or redefine. While Congress possesses plenary power over naturalization, a federal administrative agency has no constitutional authority to invent contradictory, fluid terms that distort the concept of allegiance.

By forcing States to implement a regulation that treats a person owing allegiance as a disqualified foreign “alien,” the federal government unconstitutionally invades the state’s independent power to recognize and protect residents who owe allegiance to that local State under the Law of Nations. A federal agency cannot use a linguistic paradox to command a State to deny benefits to individuals who legally fall within the State’s protected sovereign domain.

V. Grounds for Void for Vagueness

A statutory framework violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of Due Process if it is so structurally deceptive and un-statutory that an ordinary individual or state administrator cannot determine their true legal standing. By operating a text where “citizen” captures temporary allegiance, while that same allegiance classifies them as an excluded foreign “alien national of the United States,” the executive branch has manufactured a permanent, unprotected class. This class is held fully subject to state liabilities (such as treason or neutrality enforcement) while being systematically denied state reciprocity, healthcare, and basic statutory protections.

VI. Formal Demand for Action

As the chief law enforcement and defense officers of the United States, you are bound by your oaths to halt arbitrary, deceptive state subversion. We demand you immediately:

  1. Order a formal review of how 42 C.F.R. § 435.4 has unlawfully drifted from the strict INA definitions of “Citizen of the United States” to integrate conflicting Law of Nations, Title 22, and Fourteenth Amendment frameworks.
  2. Stay the enforcement of 42 C.F.R. § 435.4 and compel the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to strike the un-statutory terminology, ensuring individuals are not weaponized under concepts of allegiance while being stripped of health benefits.
  3. Investigate the administrative origin of this drafting to determine if these overlapping definitions were intentionally deployed to bypass the 14th Amendment, erase the common law jus soli equal footing doctrine, and strip away reciprocal sovereign protections. [6]

We await your prompt response regarding the steps your departments will take to cure this profound legal crisis.

Sincerely,

John Doe

FOOTNOTES:
[1] [https://en.wikisource.org](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Qualifications_for_President_and_the_%E2%80%9CNatural_Born%E2%80%9D_Citizenship_Eligibility_Requirement)
[2] [https://peterchu.com](https://peterchu.com/blogs/medium-feed/what-is-birthright-citizenship)
[3] [https://www.mintz.com](https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2806/2015-10-05-immigration-and-nationality-act-50th-anniversary-series)
[4] [https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com](https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com/insights/u-s-supreme-court-to-interpret-14th-amendments-citizenship-clause/)
[5] [https://www.scotusblog.com](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birthright-citizenship-hard-questions-and-the-best-answers-for-trumps-challengers/)
[6] [https://www.supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/395965/20260210202259508_Birthright%20Final%20Draft%20Cover%20Correct.pdf)
[7] [https://fam.state.gov](https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html)[8] [https://www.supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/395965/20260210202259508_Birthright%20Final%20Draft%20Cover%20Correct.pdf)

Posted in Corruption and tagged ,