US Supreme Court finds citizens lack right to have non-citizen spouses allowed into country News
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court finds citizens lack right to have non-citizen spouses allowed into country

The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that citizens do not have a right to have their non-citizen spouses allowed into the country. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a 6-3 majority that “a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country” after a US citizen was unable to secure an immigrant visa for her Salvadoran husband.

The case of Department of State et al. v. Muñoz et al. concerned Sandra Muñoz, a US citizen. She attempted to obtain an immigrant visa for her husband, Salvadoran citizen Luis Asencio-Cordero, who had lived in the US for several years. The application was denied based on 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), which makes a non-citizen inadmissible if the US State Department believes on reasonable grounds that the individual is entering solely to engage in “unlawful activity.” However, this reasoning was only provided after a protracted legal battle.

Typically, migration decisions are non-reviewable under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. However, Muñoz found success in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by arguing that she had a constitutionally protected interest in her husband’s visa application. This would mean that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not apply since the immigration decision concerned a constitutionally protected right. Hence, she argued, the State Department’s failure to provide reasons for their denial in a timely manner was reviewable.

However, the Supreme Court found that there was no violation of Muñoz’s fundamental rights. Justice Coney-Barrett wrote that the right Muñoz claims is “difficult to pin down.” Coney-Barrett surveyed the history of immigration law, stating Congress has “never made spousal immigration a matter of right.” Instead, according to the court, spousal immigration is a privilege that cannot trigger judicial review of an immigration decision.

A dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, criticized the majority’s process. According to the dissent, the majority issued an overly broad decision. While the majority could have found that the State Department’s belated reasoning was sufficient, it instead found that the right to marry and live with one’s spouse is not constitutionally protected. Justice Sotomayor supported the view that marriage is constitutionally protected and that decisions that impact that right must be “facially legitimate and bona fide.”

THIS DAY @ LAW

Canada passes first Citizenship Act

On June 23, 1946, Canada's first Citizenship Act received royal assent, establishing Canadian citizenship as distinct from British subject status. Learn more about the Citizenship Act, 1946 from the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21.  

Federal Housing Administration created

On June 27, 1934, the National Housing Act created the Federal Housing Administration (now part of HUD), which put the power of the federal government behind home financing, helping to make homeownership a reality for tens of millions of Americans and powering the residential real estate industry.

ICJ decides LaGrand Case, Germany v. U.S.

On June 27, 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in the LaGrand case that foreign nationals must be informed of their right to contact the embassy of their home country after arrest. Brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand were arrested in 1982 for murder and armed robbery in Arizona. However, authorities did not inform the men of their right to assistance from the German consulate under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 upheld the convictions in Germany v. US. Germany then brought the issue before the ICJ, which issued a provisional order to stay the executions. Arizona nonetheless executed the LaGrand brothers in 1999. Two years later, the ICJ held that the US had violated both the provisional order and the Vienna Convention.