For the record:
April 23, 2024 at 1:22 pmIn a previous version of this article, Luis Asensio Cordero’s surname was incorrectly spelled Asensio Cordero.
Supreme Court justices expressed reluctance Tuesday to side with a Los Angeles woman who claimed her constitutional rights were violated when the government denied her Salvadoran husband a visa because of his tattoos. Had given.
While some justices said they agreed that denying a visa to the spouse of a U.S. citizen could theoretically violate the citizen’s constitutionally protected interests, the majority suggested that the government had overstepped its bounds in this case. Have fulfilled legal responsibilities.
Former resident Luis Asencio Cordero, who is from El Salvador, is separated from his wife, L.A. civil rights lawyer Sandra Munoz, since 2015.
The couple filed suit, arguing that the federal government violated their marriage and due process rights by failing to provide a timely explanation for denying them visas.
Initially, the government said it denied a visa due to concerns that Asencio Cordero would be likely to engage in illegal activity if allowed to return to the United States.
Later, the couple learned through their trial that the government believed he was a member of the MS-13 gang, based on his tattoos as well as an interview and background check.
Asencio Cordero denies that his tattoos – which depict a comedy and tragedy theater mask, La Virgen de Guadalupe and a tribal design with claw marks – are connected to a gang. A court-approved gang expert agreed.
The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in the couple’s favor.
Administration lawyers have argued Since Muñoz and Asencio Cordero can choose to live outside the US, their right to marry has not been violated. The administration also argued that immigration officials have wide discretion when deciding who to admit into the country.
Administration lawyers also said that requiring the government to disclose specific details about the evidence and intelligence used in such decisions would slow down processing, pose a threat to public safety and future relations with foreign partners. Sharing information may be slow.
Long-established judicial doctrine prevents court review of visa determinations except in limited cases.
Biden administration lawyer Curtis Gannon said Munoz was “only indirectly” affected by the government’s actions.
“Muñoz cannot challenge the denial of her husband’s visa application in any way, as she can challenge a decision at the end of removal proceedings that she will be removed from the United States, or at the end of a criminal trial.” In which he will be sent to a prison across the country, Gannon told the judges.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited a long history of cases establishing the right to marry. Assuming Munoz is entitled to the protection of that right, she said, the question is what kind of process is adequate.
“Here you are saying she doesn’t deserve anything,” Sotomayor told Gannon. “Why do we have to go so far?”
Sotomayor and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the government’s initial explanation for the denial was too vague.
“How does a citation of illegal activity tell anyone anything?” Sotomayor asked.
Other judges seemed to agree that the government has provided adequate clarification as currently required under the law, and that State Department decisions on visas should not be subject to a double standard by judges.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., both conservatives, questioned what additional information or clarification the government should require if the case is to be sent back to lower courts for further review, as the couple is demanding.
“why are we here?” Gorsuch asked. “I’m not sure what the cause of action is here.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said case law does not require the government to provide any more explanation about visa denials than it already does.
He said, “I guess I don’t understand why Justice Gorsuch isn’t right, that it’s just game over.”
Kagan agreed, questioning why the case was continuing when the couple had already got what they asked for: an explanation of the visa denial.
Munoz’s attorney, Eric Lee, said the couple wants to file a new visa application with evidence refuting the MS-13 membership allegation — with the assurance that the federal government will review it.
A request for reconsideration This is limited to one year after the visa is rejected. Lee argued that, because Asencio Cordero did not know why he was rejected, the couple missed the opportunity to prove the government wrong. If he had known that the government believed he was an MS-13 member, an affidavit later submitted by a gang expert could have been tailored specifically to explain why his tattoos were not consistent with the notorious gang. .
“It doesn’t give us any guarantees, but it’s what’s needed for a fair process,” Lee said.
Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested that Lee’s arguments on behalf of the couple seemed contrary to the right of the federal government to control who enters the United States.
“How do you weigh the liberty interests that you are emphasizing against the government’s interest in denying visas to people who might pose a threat if they came to the United States?” Alito asked.
Roberts said, “I don’t understand how you can avoid the conclusion that this involves weighing what I see, at least, as completely unequal and perhaps irreconcilable interests.”
Lee responded that consular officers have heavy caseloads, “and what we are asking is that they give us enough information to help us make decisions.”
If the court sides with Munoz, other families may be entitled to some explanation for their visa denials.
But immigrant advocates worry that the court’s conservative majority could instead strengthen the sweeping powers of consular officers.
