Federal courts lack the authority to overturn visa denials for spouses of American citizens, even if it prevents the couple from living together in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled on Friday. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, determined that such denials do not infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens. In short, Federal Courts can not overturn visa denials.
The ruling is a setback for Sandra Muñoz, who filed a lawsuit against the State Department after her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, an El Salvadoran citizen, was denied a visa in 2015. The State Department claimed Asencio-Cordero was linked to the MS-13 gang, an allegation he has denied. The case had previously been reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which claimed that the couple had not been provided an adequate explanation of the denial of their visa application.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, criticized the majority for broadening the scope of the case unnecessarily and undermining the right to same-sex marriage. “There was a simple way to resolve this case,” Sotomayor wrote. “Instead, the majority swings for the fences.”
All justices concurred that Asencio-Cordero could not contest his visa denial as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the political branches rather than the judiciary. However, Barrett raised a “narrow exception” for judicial review if a denial affects the rights of a U.S. citizen.
The justices diverged on this point. Writing for the court's conservative majority, excluding Justice Neil Gorsuch, Barrett argued that Muñoz did not have a “fundamental right” to have her spouse admitted to the U.S. She contended that the right to live with a noncitizen spouse in the U.S. was not historically recognized, emphasizing the government's sovereign authority to regulate noncitizen admissions.
In a separate concurring opinion, Gorsuch agreed with the ruling but differed in his reasoning. He stated that Muñoz had already received the necessary explanation for her spouse’s visa denial, which should have concluded the case.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by the court's liberal justices, agreed with Gorsuch’s approach but criticized the majority for narrowly defining Muñoz’s rights. She argued that this approach undermines previous rulings on marriage rights, including same-sex marriage, by not considering the comprehensive right to marry and maintain intimacy.
The full case, Department of State v. Munoz, is available here.