Supreme Court Rules Against Woman and Her Noncitizen Husband in Major Decision
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right that requires admitting their noncitizen spouse into the country.
In Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. citizen Sandra Muñoz of Los Angeles argued that the State Department’s failure to give her a reason for her husband’s visa denial violated her own constitutional rights, claiming the “right to live with her noncitizen spouse in the United States is implicit in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
Her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, had his visa denied after a consular officer found, partially based on his tattoos, that he was affiliated with the MS-13 gang.
An attorney in LA married an undocumented man. He was denied a green card bc officials think he’s a gang member, in part bc of his tattoos – images of La Virgen de Guadalupe & theater masks. They’ve been separated for 9 years. SCOTUS might take their casehttps://t.co/S9KulStfsm
— Andrea Castillo (@andreamcastillo) January 4, 2024
The high court’s ruling came just days after President Joe Biden issued an executive order granting protection to illegal immigrant spouses of citizens.
The order unveiled Tuesday provides spouses a pathway to legal status, along with deportation protection and work permits.
“Muñoz invokes the ‘fundamental right of marriage,’ but the State Department does not deny that Muñoz (who is already married) has a fundamental right to marriage,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
“Muñoz claims something distinct: the right to reside with her noncitizen spouse in the United States,” Barrett wrote.
While Muñoz “has suffered harm from the denial of Asencio-Cordero’s visa application,” the justice said, “that harm does not give her a constitutional right to participate in his consular process.”
It’s 10:17 am on Friday June 21, 224 and three Supreme Court decisions are out. None are the blockbusters.
However, one opinion is worth highlighting — Department of State v Munoz. The reason it’s important is it comes on the heels of Biden trying to give immigration amnesty to… pic.twitter.com/CriVVje3mo
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 21, 2024
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the majority “departs from longstanding precedent and gravely undervalues the right to marriage in the immigration context.”
“Because, to me, there is no question that excluding a citizen’s spouse burdens her right to marriage, and that burden requires the Government to provide at least a factual basis for its decision, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation.
For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
