Department of State v. Munoz
602 U.S. 899 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, in their noncitizen spouse being admitted to the United States.
Facts:
- Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador, in 2010.
- The couple began the process for Asencio-Cordero to obtain an immigrant visa to live with Muñoz in the United States.
- Because Asencio-Cordero had previously entered the U.S. unlawfully, he was required to return to El Salvador and apply for his visa at the U.S. consulate in San Salvador.
- After conducting several interviews with Asencio-Cordero in 2015, a consular officer denied his visa application.
- The denial cited 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), which renders inadmissible any noncitizen believed to be seeking entry to engage in 'unlawful activity,' but provided no specific factual details.
- Asencio-Cordero suspected the denial was based on a mistaken belief that he was a member of the MS-13 gang, which he denied.
- Muñoz and Asencio-Cordero pressed the consulate and the Department of State to reconsider, submitting evidence to counter the suspected basis for the denial, but the decision was upheld without further explanation at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Muñoz and Luis Asencio-Cordero sued the Department of State in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the Department of State after it provided a sworn declaration and confidential information for in-camera review explaining the denial.
- Muñoz, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment, holding that Muñoz had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her husband's visa application that required the government to provide a timely, facially legitimate reason for the denial.
- The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
- The Department of State, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. citizen have a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Due Process Clause, in their noncitizen spouse being admitted to the United States, thereby triggering a right to receive a factual basis for a visa denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barrett
No. A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. To establish an unenumerated constitutional right under the Due Process Clause, the asserted right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' as required by Washington v. Glucksberg. An examination of U.S. history reveals that Congress has always maintained sovereign authority to set the terms for the admission and exclusion of noncitizens, and this power has never been curbed to create a right for citizens to bring noncitizen spouses into the country. Immigration laws have consistently included restrictions and grounds for inadmissibility that apply to spouses, demonstrating that spousal immigration is a matter of 'legislative grace rather than fundamental right.' Furthermore, allowing a citizen to assert procedural rights in a noncitizen's visa application would create unsettling collateral consequences and is not supported by precedent like Kleindienst v. Mandel, which involved a citizen's direct First Amendment right, not a derivative procedural claim.
Concurring - Justice Gorsuch
The Court should not have reached the constitutional question because the case is moot. Muñoz sued seeking an explanation for her husband's visa denial. During the litigation, the government provided the factual basis she sought—that it believed her husband was a member of MS-13. Since Muñoz has received the information she requested and is free to re-apply for her husband's admission armed with that knowledge, there is no live controversy left for the court to resolve through this litigation.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. The government's exclusion of a citizen's spouse burdens the citizen's fundamental right to marriage, which triggers a due process right to receive, at a minimum, a factual basis for the decision. The majority defines the right too narrowly, contrary to precedents like Obergefell v. Hodges, which protect the right to marriage in its comprehensive sense. Under Kleindienst v. Mandel, when a visa denial burdens a citizen's constitutional rights, the government must provide a 'facially legitimate and bona fide reason.' A bare statutory citation is insufficient. By denying Muñoz any explanation, the majority gravely undervalues the right to marriage and paves the way for arbitrary government action that can separate families.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the doctrine of consular nonreviewability by foreclosing a major avenue for challenging visa denials. By holding that no fundamental right is implicated when a citizen's spouse is denied entry, the Court reinforces the executive branch's broad discretion in immigration matters and limits the judiciary's role. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for U.S. citizens to compel the government to justify the exclusion of their noncitizen spouses, effectively placing such decisions beyond judicial scrutiny absent a claim implicating a recognized, independent constitutional right of the citizen, such as free speech. This precedent solidifies the principle that family unification in the immigration context is a policy privilege granted by Congress, not a constitutional right.
