In a landmark decision fraught with emotional and legal complexities, the United States Supreme Court has ruled 6-3, establishing that an American citizen does not inherently have the right to have their non-citizen spouse granted entry into the country.
Breitbart reported that this decision came after Sandra Munoz attempted to overturn the U.S.'s refusal to grant her husband a visa based on alleged links to the MS-13 gang.
This decision could have massive implications for President Joe Biden who announced this week that he wanted to naturalize all non-citizen spouses of citizens.
Sandra Munoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio-Cordero, originally from El Salvador, in 2010. Shortly after their marriage, Munoz initiated the legal process to have Asencio-Cordero recognized as an immediate relative, which would pave the way for him to potentially obtain a U.S. visa.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services initially approved Munoz's petition. Following this approval, Asencio-Cordero traveled back to El Salvador to apply for his U.S. visa.
During the visa application process, which included several interviews, Asencio-Cordero was denied the visa he sought.
The U.S. authorities argued that there was substantial reason to believe he intended to engage in criminal activities within the United States, a claim largely stemming from his alleged ties to the notorious MS-13 gang and a related tattoo.
Frustrated by the denial that was seemingly based on assumptions tied to his past in El Salvador, Asencio-Cordero and Munoz took legal action against the State Department. They argued that their matrimonial bond provided them with constitutional protection that included living together in the United States.
The case reached the district court which sided with the State Department, only to be vacated by the Ninth Circuit which supported Munoz's claim. This decision, however, was not in concert with other circuits that had rejected similar claims.
The pivotal moment in this legal struggle came when the Supreme Court weighed in.
The majority opinion, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that while Munoz indeed had a fundamental right to marriage, she did not have an undeniable right to have her non-citizen spouse live in the U.S. Justice Barrett articulated the government's historical prerogative to regulate the entry of non-citizens which is viewed as a privilege and not an inherent right.
"Here, Munoz invokes the 'fundamental right to marriage,' but she claims something more distinct: the right to reside with her noncitizen spouse in the United States," Justice Barrett explained. Furthermore, she pointed to the extensive precedent regarding immigration, emphasizing that it has always been regarded as a matter "of favor and not of right."
This ruling underscores the historical and nuanced stance of U.S. immigration law, bringing to light that the rights of citizens do not automatically translate into rights for their non-citizen spouses.
Justice Barrett also touched on the broader implications of such claims, highlighting that they could lead to "unsettling collateral consequences" if the doors were opened for U.S. citizens to claim procedural due process rights in immigration cases involving others.
In summary remarks, Justice Barrett clarified, "Today, we resolve the open question; we hold that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."
Dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, provided a contrasting viewpoint, emphasizing the human and relational impact of the majority’s legal interpretation.
This decision has stirred considerable discussion and concern among immigration advocates, civil rights activists, and affected families.
It highlights a stark reality faced by mixed-nationality couples attempting to navigate the intricate and often unforgiving labyrinth of U.S. immigration laws.
In conclusion, Sandra Munoz’s case sheds light on the constitutional boundaries of marriage and immigration while underscoring the complexities and disputes that arise when those two worlds collide. The Supreme Court's decision cements a perspective that may guide similar cases in the future, indicating the pathways and barriers for U.S. citizens married to non-citizens wishing to reside together in the United States.