In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a visa to a man with suspected gang affiliations, setting a pivotal precedent regarding the rights of American citizens to have their noncitizen spouses live in the U.S.
Breitbart News reported that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against American citizen Sandra Munoz, who attempted to secure a U.S. visa for her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, citing his alleged MS-13 gang ties as a fundamental issue.
Sandra Munoz and Luis Asencio-Cordero, an illegal alien from El Salvador, married in 2010. Following their marriage, Munoz embarked on a journey to bring her husband to the U.S., which culminated in significant legal challenges.
Munoz applied for Asencio-Cordero's immediate relative classification through United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which initially approved the petition.
Asencio-Cordero returned to El Salvador for his visa application, which was subsequently denied. The denial was based on suspicions of his intent to engage in criminal activities within the U.S. and his alleged membership in the MS-13 gang, with a specific note on his gang-affiliated tattoo.
Challenging the decision, Munoz and Asencio-Cordero sued the State Department under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. The District Court sided with the State Department, but the Ninth Circuit overturned its decision, which recognized Munoz's constitutional stake in the matter.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, articulating the majority's viewpoint, noted:
From this Nation’s beginnings, the admission of noncitizens into the country was characterized as “of favor [and] not of right.” And when Congress began to restrict immigration in the late 19th century, the laws it enacted provided no exceptions for citizens’ spouses. And while Congress has, on occasion, extended special immigration treatment to marriage … it has never made spousal immigration a matter of right.
The Supreme Court's decision reverses the Ninth Circuit's ruling. It emphasizes that while citizens can have interests in their noncitizen spouses' affairs, these do not rise to the level of fundamental liberty interests warranting constitutional protection.
The majority, led by Justice Barrett and including Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, asserted the principle that the admission of noncitizens is a matter of legislative grace rather than a constitutional guarantee.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson's dissenting opinion highlighted concerns about the implications of such a decision for American families with noncitizen members. They argued that the ruling might set a restrictive precedent on family reunification policies.
Justice Barrett further discussed the historical context:
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.
In summary, the Supreme Court has delineated clear boundaries around U.S. citizens' rights to live with noncitizen spouses. This ruling clarifies the limitations of constitutional protections in scenarios involving international marriage and alleged criminal affiliations.
Today's decision underscores a pivotal point in U.S. immigration policy, reflecting the ongoing debate over the balance between national security and individual rights. Sandra Munoz's case serves as a landmark in understanding the extent and limits of constitutional rights concerning family reunification.
