Draft:Dos v munoz draft 1

• Comment: This article already exists in the mainspace (see above). I would suggest merging your content and sources into the existing one. OnlyNano^talk 22:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Department of State v. Muñoz

Department of State v Muñoz
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 23, 2024 Decided June 21, 2024
Full case name	Department of State v. Muñoz
Docket no.	23-334
Citations	602 U.S. __ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Holding
A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Majority	Barrett
Concurrence	Gorsuch
Dissent	Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
338 U. S. 537, 547, 585 U. S. 667, 703 576 U. S. 86, 103–104. Amendment XIV

Department of State v. Muñoz (U.S.C. 602 __ 2024) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the right to spousal immigration into the U.S.

Background

Sandra Muñoz, the spouse of Luis Asencio-Cordero, sought an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero so they could live together in the United States. Muñoz filed a petition with U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to have Asencio-Cordero classified as an immediate relative, in accordance with 8 U. S. C. §§1151(b)(2)(A)(i). USCIS granted the petition and Asencio-Cordero traveled to San Salvador to apply for a visa. After multiple interviews, Asencio-Cordero was denied entry citing §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), a provision that prohibits people from out of the country to enter the United States based on suspicions of possibly committing a crime while in the United States. Asencio-Cordero suspected it was because he was a member of MS-13, a transnational criminal gang. He disavowed his membership and applied for reconsideration. The consulate refused, so they petitioned the U.S Department of State, who agreed with the consulate's decision. Ascensio-Cordero and Muñoz sued the Department of State, citing that the Department of State, "had abridged Muñoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why Asencio-Cordero is inadmissible under the 'unlawful activity' bar." The District Court provided summary judgement to the State Department, however, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgement, affirming that Muñoz had a constitutionally protected protected liberty interest in her husband's visa application. Because she had a protected liberty interest, the State Department was required by the Due Process clause to provide Muñoz with a reason for denying her husband's visa. The court further held that because the State Department declined to give Muñoz further information earlier in the process, it had forfeited its right to insulate the decision from judicial review under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Muñoz did not have a fundamental liberty interest in her spouse being admitted into the United States. The Supreme Court also noted that, "while Congress has extended special treatment to marriage in immigration matters, it has never made spousal immigration a matter of right." The court considered exceptions found by Trump v. Hawaii “when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen.” Since Asencio-Cordero was not a U.S. citizen, he could not invoke the exception and therefore Muñoz had to. She argued that the right to live with her spouse in her country of citizenship was disregarding her rights to due process and claimed that living with her spouse was one of her fundamental rights. According to Washington v. Glucksberg, when a fundamental right is at stake, there must a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. It also holds that the Due Process Clause only protects, “those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” However, the court found that since Muñoz claimed that her fundamental right to marriage included spousal cohabitation, it was implied that her spouse must enter the United States as a part of her right. The court found that the asserted right was fundamental enough to be implicit in liberty, however the deprivation of the asserted right does not cause strict scrutiny, therefore not qualifying for the second part of Washington v. Glucksberg. They also clarified that Congress has never made spousal immigration a right. The dissent by Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, stated that the decision, "gravely undervalues the right to marriage in the immigration context..."