Department of State v. Muñoz

Department of State v. Muñoz
Argued April 23, 2024
Decided June 21, 2024
Full case nameUnited States Department of State, et al. v. Sandra Muñoz, et al.
Docket no.23-334
Citations602 U.S. 899 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
DecisionOpinion
Case history
Prior
  • Case dismissed, Muñoz v. Department of State, 526 F.Supp.3d 709 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (mem.)
  • Vacated and remanded, 50 F.4th 906 (9th Cir. 2022)
  • Certiorari granted, 602 U.S. ___ (January 12, 2024)
Questions presented
1. Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen.
2. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.
Holding
A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her 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
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceGorsuch (in judgment)
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024), 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.