## Facts

- Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio‑Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador, and sought to live with him in the United States.
- USCIS approved Muñoz’s immigrant petition classifying Asencio‑Cordero as an immediate relative.
- Asencio‑Cordero applied for an immigrant visa at the U.S. consulate in San Salvador.
- A consular officer denied the visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), concluding the officer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe Asencio‑Cordero sought to enter the United States to engage in specified offenses or other unlawful activity.
- The government did not disclose the underlying evidence, citing national security.
- Asencio‑Cordero believed the denial involved an allegation of MS‑13 affiliation and denied any gang membership; the couple sought reconsideration without success.
- Muñoz and Asencio‑Cordero sued, alleging that failure to provide an adequate reason for the denial violated Muñoz’s constitutional rights.
- The district court upheld the denial after in camera review; the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding Muñoz had a protected liberty interest tied to marriage and that due process required more than a bare statutory citation.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment gives a U.S. citizen a fundamental liberty interest in the government’s admission of the citizen’s noncitizen spouse.
2. If such an interest exists, whether due process requires the government to provide more than citation to the statutory ground of inadmissibility for a consular visa denial.

## Decision

- The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in having a noncitizen spouse admitted to the United States.
- Because no such fundamental interest was established, the Court rejected the premise for requiring heightened procedural explanations for the denial beyond the statutory inadmissibility basis.
- Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment.
- Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

## Legal Principles

- Recognition of an unenumerated substantive due process right requires showing the asserted right is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and carefully described.
- The constitutional right to marry does not, by itself, include a right to secure a spouse’s admission to the United States or to confer immigration benefits through marriage.
- Longstanding congressional regulation of spousal immigration, including grounds of inadmissibility, weighs against treating spousal admission as a fundamental constitutional entitlement.
- In the absence of a fundamental right held by the citizen, courts have no constitutional basis to impose additional procedural requirements for consular visa denials beyond what the statute provides.

## Conclusion

The Court held that marriage-related liberty interests do not extend to a constitutional right of a U.S. citizen to live in the United States with a noncitizen spouse through the spouse’s admission, and the visa denial therefore did not trigger the due process protections the citizen sought.


Department of State v. Muñoz, 144 S. Ct. 1812 (2024)