| Department of State v. Muñoz | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 23, 2024 Decided June 21, 2024 | |
| Full case name | United States Department of State, et al. v. Sandra Muñoz, et al. |
| Docket no. | 23-334 |
| Citations | 602U.S. 899 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | |
| Questions presented | |
| 1. Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen. 2. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due. | |
| Holding | |
| Acitizen does not have afundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | |
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a "citizen does not have afundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."[1][2][3] The case was a challenge by aU.S. citizen to theState Department's rejection of her non-citizen husband's application for an immigrationvisa with little explanation.
In the majority opinion by JusticeBarrett, the Supreme Court concluded that history and tradition supported Congress's authority to decide whether a citizen's spouse may enter the country. As such, the majority concluded that the right to marry does not create an exception toconsular nonreviewability, under which courts may not review the denial of a visa application.
The three dissenting justices, in an opinion by JusticeSotomayor, said that such a visa denial burdens the fundamental right of marriage, defined broadly in cases likeObergefell v. Hodges, such that the courts may scrutinize whether the government gave a facially legitimate explanation for the denial. However, they thought that the government had sufficiently explained the visa denial by saying it was based on suspected gang affiliation.
In 2008, Sandra C. Muñoz, a Los Angeles attorney and citizen of the United States, met Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen ofEl Salvador who was anundocumented immigrant.[4] They married in 2010.[4] In 2013, Asencio applied for agreen card (permanent residency).[4] As part of the process, he returned to El Salvador for a screening interview at the U.S. consulate in 2015, expecting to return to the United States after a few weeks.[4] During the interview, the consular officer asked him to remove his clothing and asked about Asencio's tattoos, such as one depicting theVirgin of Guadalupe.[4] Six months later, the government denied Asencio's visa application, saying that he was likely to engage in unlawful activities in the United States,[4] without further explanation as to why.[5]
The doctrine ofconsular nonreviewability in the United States stipulates that the denial of avisa to enter the country is generally not reviewable in court.[6] However, the Supreme Court had made a narrow exception when the denial impairs theconstitutional rights of someone else who is aU.S. citizen.[6] When that exception applies, the government must give a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for the visa denial.[6]
In 2017, Muñoz and Asencio filed a suit against the government in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[4] In 2018, three years after rejecting the visa application, the government stated that the denial was due to suspicion that Asencio was affiliated withMS-13, an internationalcriminal gang.[7] The district court agreed with the government that Muñoz could not challenge the denial of her husband's visa application, dismissing the case[6] in a ruling bymagistrate judge Alka Sagar.[7]
TheNinth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's ruling, on the grounds that Muñoz'sright to marriage and family life was protected by theDue Process Clause and that this right was impaired by the denial of Asencio's visa request and failure of the government to provide a detailed reasoning for its decision within a reasonable timeframe.[6]Kermit V. Lipez, a circuit judge of theFirst Circuit (sittingby designation) wrote the majority opinion, joined byMary M. Schroeder.Kenneth K. Lee dissented.[7]
On January 12, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, granting the government's petition for a writ ofcertiorari.[8] The Supreme Court heardoral argument on April 23.[6]
JusticeAmy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion, joined by JusticesRoberts,Thomas,Alito, andKavanaugh. Barrett rejected Muñoz's assertion that she had a fundamental liberty interest at stake. In order to claim "an unenumerated constitutional right", Barrett said, Muñoz "must show that the asserted right is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition'" (quotingWashington v. Glucksberg (1997)).[9][5] Pointing to Congress's history of regulating immigration of spouses, Barrett concluded that the right asserted did not meet theGlucksberg test.[5]
Justice Gorsuch wrote a short opinion concurring in the judgment but not the majority's reasoning. Gorsuch would have reversed the decision of the court of appeals because the government had already given more explanation for its denial of the visa,[10] as Muñoz had sought when filing the lawsuit, and because the government stated at oral argument that Muñoz could seek a new decision from the government on admitting her husband into the country.[11]
JusticeSonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesKagan andJackson.[5] Sotomayor agreed that the government should win the case, saying that the consulate's conclusion that Asencio was affiliated withMS-13 was a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" sufficient underKleindienst v. Mandel (1972).[5] However, Sotomayor faulted the majority for deciding more than necessary and for narrowly construing the fundamental right to marry recognized in cases likeObergefell v. Hodges (2015).[5] Criticizing the majority's use ofWashington v. Glucksberg to find that there was no constitutional right implicated in the case, Sotomayor said that "Obergefell rejected what the majority does today as 'inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing [the] fundamental rights' of 'marriage and intimacy.'"[12][5]