Department of State v. Muñoz
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a "citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country." The case was a challenge by a U.S. citizen to the State Department's rejection of her non-citizen husband's application for an immigration visa with little explanation.
In the majority opinion by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court concluded that history and tradition supported Congress's authority to decide whether a citizen's spouse may enter the country. As such, the majority concluded that the right to marry does not create an exception to consular nonreviewability, under which courts may not review the denial of a visa application.
The three dissenting justices, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, said that such a visa denial burdens the fundamental right of marriage, defined broadly in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, such that the courts may scrutinize whether the government gave a facially legitimate explanation for the denial. However, they thought that the government had sufficiently explained the visa denial by saying it was based on suspected gang affiliation.
Background
In 2008, Sandra C. Muñoz, a Los Angeles attorney and citizen of the United States, met Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador who was an undocumented immigrant. They married in 2010. In 2013, Asencio applied for a green card. As part of the process, he returned to El Salvador for a screening interview at the U.S. consulate in 2015, expecting to return to the United States after a few weeks. During the interview, the consular officer asked him to remove his clothing and asked about Asencio's tattoos, such as one depicting the Virgin of Guadalupe. Six months later, the government denied Asencio's visa application, saying that he was likely to engage in unlawful activities in the United States, without further explanation as to why.The doctrine of consular nonreviewability in the United States stipulates that the denial of a visa to enter the country is generally not reviewable in court. However, the Supreme Court had made a narrow exception when the denial impairs the constitutional rights of someone else who is a U.S. citizen. When that exception applies, the government must give a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for the visa denial.
In 2017, Muñoz and Asencio filed a suit against the government in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In 2018, three years after rejecting the visa application, the government stated that the denial was due to suspicion that Asencio was affiliated with MS-13, an international criminal gang. The district court agreed with the government that Muñoz could not challenge the denial of her husband's visa application, dismissing the case in a ruling by magistrate judge Alka Sagar.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's ruling, on the grounds that Muñoz's right to marriage and family life was protected by the Due Process Clause and that this right was impaired by the denial of Asencio's visa request and failure of the government to provide a detailed reasoning for its decision within a reasonable timeframe. Kermit V. Lipez, a circuit judge of the First Circuit wrote the majority opinion, joined by Mary M. Schroeder. Kenneth K. Lee dissented.
On January 12, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, granting the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 23.