The Supreme Court recently made a decision regarding a case involving an American citizen, Sandra Muñoz, and her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, who is a citizen of El Salvador and believed to have ties to the MS-13 gang. Muñoz filed a petition to obtain an immigrant visa for her husband so they could live together in the United States, but it was denied.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Muñoz had a constitutional right to her husband’s visa application and that the government needed to provide a valid reason for the denial. However, the Supreme Court disagreed in a 6-3 decision, stating that procedural due process was not applicable in this case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the opinion, explained that Muñoz’s argument was based on the premise that the right to bring a noncitizen spouse to the U.S. is a constitutional right, which she failed to establish. The court also mentioned that Congress’s regulations on spousal immigration contradicted Muñoz’s claim.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, referenced the Obergefell v. Hodges case on same-sex marriage to argue that Muñoz’s right to be with her husband should be protected. They criticized the majority’s decision for not considering the impact on citizens’ constitutional rights when their noncitizen spouses are excluded from the country.
Sotomayor also mentioned the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion rights and highlighted the potential consequences of the ruling on same-sex couples and others who may face challenges living outside the U.S. with their spouses.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent regarding the constitutional rights of citizens in cases involving noncitizen spouses and immigration issues. The ruling emphasizes the complexities of immigration laws and the balance between individual liberties and national security concerns.