Althouse: "A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

June 21, 2024

"A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

The Supreme Court rules, in Department of State v. Muñoz, a 6-3 decision written by Barrett.

There's a concurring opinion by Gorsuch.

The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor begins:

33 comments:

rehajm said...: Democrat House member hardest hit…; 6/21/24, 9:22 AM
rehajm said...: If it’s safe to assume Salvadorian husband had no green card then the unlawful activity is living in the country illegally, yes?; 6/21/24, 9:27 AM
Narayanan said...: they need to be able to touch each other with 10,000 leagues long poles over/under sea = ?may be available as welfare benefits?; 6/21/24, 9:28 AM
Václav Patrik Šulik said...: I thought this would be the outcome of the case; although; I thought Barrett would join the dissenters. Specifically, I thought she would vote in favor of preserving the marital union.; 6/21/24, 9:29 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: No one who has entered our nation illegally deserves anything.

Democrats disagree.; 6/21/24, 9:31 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Well that decision and even Sotomayor's dissent seem to suggest there's still an actual system in place to transition from immigrant to citizen. And that we can in fact be discriminatory in our selection of the better applicants.

Hmmm. That's hard to reconcile with Joe's "come one (-million) come all!" policy. Very hard.; 6/21/24, 9:37 AM
Sebastian said...: "A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

No prob. Joe will just let them. Discretion and all that.; 6/21/24, 9:37 AM
Dave Begley said...: Biden won't enforce this SCOTUS decision. He's lawless.; 6/21/24, 9:47 AM
tommyesq said...: According to the decision, the spouse had petitioned for a visa to enter the country, and after several interviews with a consular officer, was denied. While no reason was give, the spouse felt that the officer believed him to be an MS-13 gang member (at some point in the litigation, the government acknowledged that this was, in fact, the reason). The wife was asserting that she had a fundamental liberty interest in being given the reason his visa application was denied.

The Court had previously determined that consular decisions are not subject to judicial review (meaning that the spouse could not file suit) but that an exception arose when a consular decision affected a fundamental right of a U.S. citizen.

The Court chose to characterize her affected "right" to be not one of marriage, but of being able to live with her non-citizen spouse in the United States, and conducted its analysis on this aspect. It determined that this was not a right that was deeply rooted in this country's history and traditions (and instead that the country's history and traditions always recognized sovereign authority to set the conditions for allowance into the country of noncitizens, somebody notify Joe Biden) and thus strict scrutiny did not apply.

Sotomayor would have held that a legitimate reason had to be given, but that potential membership in MS-13 was sufficient to exclude the spouse - she just thought the majority went too far in not requiring a reason be given in the case of an alien spouse.; 6/21/24, 9:53 AM
friscoda said...: Gorsuch is a gem.; 6/21/24, 10:03 AM
tim maguire said...: A law abiding person should be allowed to live with their American spouse in the US and be fast-tracked for citizenship. That is the legislation I would fully support. But it's not a constitutional right and if the legislation doesn't support that, then the answer is to change the legislation.; 6/21/24, 10:03 AM
Virgil Hilts said...: I have a fundamental liberty interest in keeping MS-13 members out of this country. This crap is so easy to abuse with arranged marriages. And even if it's true love, screw anyone evil anough to marry an MS-13 member. I hope Trump spends the entire debate talking about the rapists and murderers that Biden has let in.; 6/21/24, 10:14 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: In Denver - run by radical leftists who attempt to outshine Gavin..
Democrats spend millions and millions on drug addicts and illegal entrants.

Meanwhile - our roads are crumbling, crime continues to spike, and our public schools are woke leftist BS factories.; 6/21/24, 10:19 AM
Narayanan said...: why not diffuse/defuse the situation thusly?

no citizenship by naturalization at all at all > only to their natural/native born children; 6/21/24, 10:21 AM
narciso said...: i'm surprised because ms 13 are rather easy to tell, unlike I suppose tren de agua,; 6/21/24, 10:27 AM
John henry said...: For those wondering, there are some pictures of the husband here. He has numerous gang looking tattoos inclusing a big MS on his back.

https://rpp.pe/mundo/actualidad/visa-a-estados-unidos-luis-acensio-cordero-historia-del-inmigrante-salvadoreno-a-quien-se-le-nego-el-documento-por-sus-tatuajes-tramite-rppusa-noticia-1525829

I'd say the tats alone should keep him out.

John Henry; 6/21/24, 10:56 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Sean Davis writes:

Is there a new leaker at the Supreme Court?

Just days ago, the Biden regime announced a radical new executive order to legalize the immigrant spouses of citizens, even if those immigrants were in the U.S. to commit crimes or were here legally. It was very strange timing for such an oddly specific EO.

Now we know why: the Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-3 decision that the U.S. is not required to admit immigrant spouses of American citizens in a case involving an MS-13 member whose spouse was a U.S. citizen and who demanded legalization.

“From this Nation’s beginnings, the admission of noncitizens into this country was characterized as ‘of favor [and] not right,” the Court ruled.

Somebody at the White House was clearly tipped off about the unannounced Supreme Court decision, which explains why the White House rushed out such a shoddily written and argued new executive order to open the border even more: the Biden regime knew how the Supreme Court was going to rule, and it sought to pre-empt the court with its absurd EO.

Interesting indeed.; 6/21/24, 11:11 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “In Denver - run by radical leftists who attempt to outshine Gavin..
Democrats spend millions and millions on drug addicts and illegal entrants.”

And my daughter, her new baby, and husband live around the there. She, at least doesn’t have to go into Denver, except to the airport, and it’s only in Denver in trade for Aurora getting the spillover from moving the airport. He, though, has to drive into the city every day during the week. My brothers live far enough to the west that they are still safe, though we do have one apartment building right off of Colfax in Lakewood that is in a deteriorating. We got sued this year for a squatter breaking into a resident’s unit and trying to maybe rape her. It’s all a bit contrived, esp with the police report that verified that the door purportedly utilized was well secured. Lawyers.

Bit nostalgic - my grandparents moved to Denver in 1923, bringing along their 1 year old baby, my father. We were all born there and three of us have degrees from universities there. Lived there several times as an adult, and even worked for the city once, as a personal property tax auditor. Luckily, I didn’t do well as a city bureaucrat. We were in the office for an hour every morning, then out for the rest of the day, which translated into 2-3 hours for most of those I worked with. Most, of course, had side businesses.; 6/21/24, 11:16 AM
fairmarketvalue said...: Tim McGuire said: "A law abiding person should be allowed to live with their American spouse in the US and be fast-tracked for citizenship. That is the legislation I would fully support. But it's not a constitutional right and if the legislation doesn't support that, then the answer is to change the legislation."

I agree with Tim's analysis, particularly under the facts of the case. That said, this decision has cut close to home for my family. My daughter in law was born in a border town in Texas to a Mexican mother and subsequently grew up in Mexico. She met my son while on a student visa in Texas and they ultimately married, only to find the U.S. birth was with a midwife instead of a hospital, and consequently there is insufficient documentation about her U.S. birth to confirm my daughter in law's U.S. citizen status. As a result, under current law, unless she abandons her infant daughter and husband and returns to Mexico without any guarantee of successfully returning to the U.S. legally, she is condemned to live in the shadows here until a rational path is enacted for her to obtain what she already should have, i.e., the formal status of U.S. citizenship. While without authority, Biden's initiative would mitigate, to some extent, the harshness of the current rule requiring a return to Mexico pending application. I hope that an appropriate legislative change occurs in Trump's upcoming tenure that normalizes my daughter in law' status.; 6/21/24, 11:24 AM
Rocco said...: fairmarketvalue said...
"This decision has cut close to home for my family. My daughter in law was born in a border town in Texas to a Mexican mother and subsequently grew up in Mexico. She met my son while on a student visa in Texas and they ultimately married, only to find the U.S. birth was with a midwife instead of a hospital, and consequently there is insufficient documentation about her U.S. birth to confirm my daughter in law's U.S. citizen status."

I don't see how this is relevant to the case at hand. Unlike your DIL, there is no disputing that the husband is a foreign national and not a US citizen.; 6/21/24, 11:37 AM
n.n said...: Closing the "anchor spouse... partner... client" loophole that can credibly be used to violate civil rights and promote social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Define natural born status of babies conceived by a man and woman native to the jurisdiction. Allow a mixed couple, couplet, or other arrangement to petition for legal union.; 6/21/24, 11:44 AM
stlcdr said...: Since I'm a non-native-born citizen, this holds an interest to me. The judgement is correct, that the US holds all the cards regarding who can or cannot enter the country - it's part of their job. Even though I married an American, I [we] had to petition the government for myself to reside in the US. There is no constitutional right. It requires a lot of background checking, what you are going to do to support yourself, and so on.

I have no problem with that, as I had no problem with it back then. Indeed, other countries have a much more stringent process than the US.; 6/21/24, 12:00 PM
Rabel said...: Sotomayor's dissent clearly outlines the law as it relates to spousal immigration.

There's nothing in it that justifies the recent amnesty attempt by President Biden.

That attempt, and what evaluation of it's legality by either conservative or liberal media as there was, seems to have been buried.

The dissent was likely written well before amnesty announcement.; 6/21/24, 12:43 PM
fairmarketvalue said...: Rocco said “I don't see how this is relevant to the case at hand. Unlike your DIL, there is no disputing that the husband is a foreign national and not a US citizen.”

Since my DIL has overstayed her visa (under her Mexican passport issued because of her residency in Mexico), she technically is an illegal migrant who can only be legalized by returning to Mexico and applying for a green card or citizenship by marriage from there. Presumably she could also request another visa, but it would require being in Mexico. The requirement to return and stay in Mexico while applying is the common thread to the case.; 6/21/24, 12:44 PM
Rabel said...: "Tim McGuire said: "A law abiding person should be allowed to live with their American spouse in the US and be fast-tracked for citizenship. That is the legislation I would fully support."

You describe the current law on spousal immigration.; 6/21/24, 1:00 PM
Michael K said...: My middle daughter had an English subject boyfriend at one time who was very interested in marrying a US citizen to stay and legalize himself. She wasn't interested but he did find a lesbian young woman was was willing for a price.; 6/21/24, 1:21 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: I have two daughters--and I offer some not entirely facetious advice. Don't let them travel overseas before they are safely married. LOL.

My younger daughter had been sent by GE to work in England. She met an Englishman, they married, and both live and work in London. My daughter and the two grandkids now hold dual US and British citizenship.

My elder daughter was vacationing on Santorini. She met a Greek man. They married. The two now live in Los Angeles. My Greek son in law went through the green card process, followed all the rules and now holds US Citizenship. It can be done---assuming you're not some sort of international criminal type. The process is slow and complicated however.; 6/21/24, 4:19 PM
Lucien said...: In order to be employed, wouldn’t husband have had to utter a forged identification document for the purpose of defrauding prospective employers? Sounds like felonies to me.; 6/21/24, 5:38 PM
Achilles said...: Wow the dumb fat soviet pharisee actually referred to Obergfell.

Obergfell is just more penumbra stacked on top of no real constitutional foundation.

The 9th and 10th amendments couldn't have been more clear about the matter.

The court is just participating in circular justification. These people just make shit up.; 6/21/24, 7:55 PM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: Tim McGuire said:
"A law abiding person should be allowed to live with their American spouse in the US and be fast-tracked for citizenship. That is the legislation I would fully support."

That IS the law.

His problem is that he was / is a member of MS-13, the transnational gangwhos slogan is "kill, rape, control".

The consular officer correctly decided that the US doesn't need more criminals, and so refused to let him in

To quote the majority:
From this Nation’s beginnings, the admission of noncitizens into the country was characterized as “of favor [and] not of right.” J. Madison, Report of 1800.

Since it's a favor, not a right, no, you do NOT get to demand to know why, or take it to the cour5ts.

This, BTW, is totally inconsistent with teh Roberts special protecting DACA from Trump. It is, however, totally consistent with Trump being able to nuke DACA, and any pro-illegal Biden EOs, and just mass deporting all the illegals here; 6/22/24, 11:01 AM
Greg the Class Traitor said...: This Court has not interfered with such policy choices, despite their interference with the spousal relationship. Thus in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, the Court reaffirmed, in the case of a noncitizen spouse who was denied admission for confidential security reasons, the longstanding principle “that the United States can, as a matter of public policy . . . forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within [its] borders,” and “[n]o limits can be put by the courts upon” that power. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 237. Pp. 8–15.
(c) Muñoz’s claim to a procedural due process right in someone else’s legal proceeding would have unsettling collateral consequences. Her position would usher in a new strain of constitutional law—one that prevents the government from taking actions that “indirectly or incidentally” burden a citizen’s legal rights. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. 748, 767. See, e.g., O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U. S. 773, 788. To be sure, Muñoz has suffered harm from the denial of Asencio-Cordero’s visa application, but that harm does not give her a constitutional right to participate in his consular proceeding.

This, too, is totally inconsistent with the Roberts special protecting DACA from Trump. If you wife doesn't have a right to get involved, then neither does your college, your employer, or your landlord

So this really is a great decision. Which is why all three lefties opposed it; 6/22/24, 11:05 AM
FullMoon said...: From John Henry's link above:

"The story dates back to 2008, when Acensio , then undocumented, met Sandra Muñoz, a prominent American civil rights lawyer, whom he married two years later."

Wonder how they met?; 6/22/24, 11:19 AM
Dave said...: The discretionary power of the consulates to admit spouses should be removed. It should be procedure and not judgement. I guess since the state department is staffed by non political public servants, allowing discretion in these matters is acceptable.

---

It would take me at least 1.5 years and over 1200.00 to bring my wife to the USA through legal pathways.

I told her that if she goes to a consular interview to tell them how much she appreciates Joe Biden, and the support he gives her country.

---

Laws are made for conservatives to obey. We are crabs in a bucket, and that's why I left. I don't want to get angry, so I will not check back on this thread for a few days.; 6/23/24, 2:11 AM