The Supreme Court recently ruled in a 6-3 decision that an American citizen, Sandra Muñoz, does not have a constitutional basis to bring a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department to give her noncitizen MS-13-member husband a visa. Muñoz, a citizen of the United States, had married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador, and sought to obtain an immigrant visa for him. Despite being denied, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Muñoz had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her husband’s visa application. However, the Supreme Court refuted this claim, stating that procedural due process was not applicable in this case.
The court explained that Muñoz’s argument, which was based on the premise that the right to bring her noncitizen spouse to the U.S. was an unenumerated constitutional right, failed to establish that this right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion, stating that the longstanding regulation of spousal immigration by Congress contradicted Muñoz’s argument. The dissenting Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, cited the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage case in their rationale for disagreeing with the majority decision.
Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that Muñoz’s right to marry, live with her husband, and raise children alongside him should have entitled her to due process when the Government excluded him from the U.S. She criticized the majority’s broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure. Sotomayor also referenced the recent Dobbs v. Jackson opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, expressing concern about the impact on other substantive due process rights such as the right to marry, live with relatives, and make decisions about children’s education.
The case raises questions about the rights of citizens in relation to the immigration status of their noncitizen spouses. While Muñoz may still be able to live with her husband in El Salvador, she will face challenges raising her U.S.-citizen child outside of the United States. Sotomayor highlighted the disproportionate burden that excluding noncitizen spouses can have on same-sex couples and others who may struggle to establish a home in the noncitizen spouse’s country of origin. The dissenting Justices argued that the majority’s decision undermines fundamental constitutional rights and fails to address the impact on families affected by immigration restrictions.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Muñoz v. U.S. Department of State case clarified that American citizens do not have a constitutional right to demand procedural due process in their noncitizen spouse’s visa application. The decision focused on the lack of historical and traditional basis for such a claim and highlighted Congress’s authority in regulating spousal immigration. The case underscores the complexities and challenges faced by citizens and their noncitizen spouses in navigating immigration laws and policies in the United States.
