The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a U.S. citizen who sued the State Department to grant a visa to the foreign husband of an MS-13 member has no constitutional basis to bring such a lawsuit.
In 2010, Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio Cordero, a Salvadoran citizen. The couple eventually attempted to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio Cordero so they could live together in the U.S. Muñoz filed a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to classify Asencio Cordero as an immediate family member, but it was denied.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, as a citizen, Ms. Muñoz had a constitutionally protected civil liberty interest in her husband’s visa application. The Court said that because of that right, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution required the government to give Ms. Muñoz a “facially legitimate and good faith reason” for denying her husband a visa.
But in a 6-3 decision on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that[t]Ultimately, due process is a strange vehicle for Muñoz’s argument.”
Supreme Court upholds federal firearms ban for subjects of domestic violence restraining orders
Supreme Court of Washington, DC (AP Photo/Jacqueline Martin)
He also said that court precedents “do not support that.”[w]”Whatever that means, the case does not hold that a citizen’s independent constitutional rights (e.g., free speech claims) entitle that citizen to a procedural due process right to a ‘good and honest face’ explanation for why someone else’s visa was denied. And Muñoz does not have that constitutional right.”
In a ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court explained that Asencio Cordero presumably had been denied a visa based on a determination that he was a member of the international criminal organization MS-13, so he denied being a member of any organization and, together with Muñoz, asked the consulate to reconsider his case.
Muñoz argued that when his visa was denied, “the right to live with one’s alien spouse in the United States is implicit in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The denial of her husband’s visa deprived this right and triggered his right to due process. The consular officer violated Asensio Cordero’s right to due process by failing to disclose the basis for his inadmissibility, which allows for judicial review even though a visa denial cannot ordinarily be reviewed by a court.”
“Muñoz’s argument is fundamentally flawed,” Barrett wrote. “Her argument is based on the premise that the right to bring an alien spouse to the United States is an unenumerated constitutional right.”
Order ICE to end knock-and-talk tactics for immigration arrests
MS-13, also known as Mara Salvatrucha, is believed to have several thousand members across the country. (Getty Images)
“To establish this premise, she must show that the right she asserts is ‘deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation.'” She cannot show this, and in fact, Congress’s long-standing restrictions on spousal immigration, including admissions restrictions, have been counterproductive,” Barrett wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority and cited same-sex marriage cases.Bergefeld v. Hodges As part of their rationale.
“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition,” Sotomayor said. Obergefell opinion.
“The majority could have resolved this case on narrow grounds based on long-standing precedent. This Court has already recognized that excluding an alien from the country can burden the constitutional right of citizens who seek to keep that alien in the country,” she continued.
“Instead, the majority today chooses a broad marriage ruling over a narrow procedural ruling,” she said, “a ruling that if the government deports Muñoz, it gives her no right to marry, live with her husband, and raise children with him.”
Sotomayor also Dobbs vs. Jackson Opinion overturned Roe v. Wade.
Of the 49 migrants flown from Florida to Martha’s Vineyard, some are now able to work legally in the US.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett (not pictured) speak with moderator Eric Liu, co-founder and CEO of Citizen University, during a panel discussion at the Civic Learning Week National Forum at George Washington University on March 12, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
“Although the majority two terms ago assured that repealing abortion rights would not ‘in any way’ impair other established substantive due process rights, such as the ‘right to marry,’ the ‘right to live with relatives,’ or the ‘right to decide about one’s children’s education,’ the Supreme Court failed on its first test,” she said.
Click here to get the FOX News app
“Muñoz may be able to live with her husband in El Salvador, but it would mean raising her children, who are U.S. citizens, outside the United States. Others will be less fortunate. The heaviest burden will fall on same-sex couples and those who, for legal or economic reasons, cannot reside in their foreign spouse’s country of origin,” she said.
“For these couples, this Court’s view of marriage as ‘the assurance that someone will care for the other as long as they both live’ rings hollow,” Justice Sotomayor concluded.
