Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Department of State v. Muñoz

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Department of State v. Muñoz
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: April 23, 2024
Decided: June 21, 2024
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Neil Gorsuch (in judgment)
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Department of State v. Muñoz is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 23, 2024.

The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a 6-3 decision, holding that a U.S. citizen does not have a constitutionally-vested liberty interest in the citizenship procedures of their spouse. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned immigration law, specifically, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability—whether a consular official's denial of an immigration visa can be reviewed by a court— and whether that decision impinges on a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights when their spouse is not a U.S. citizen.[2] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The 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.
    (3) Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial "within a reasonable time," or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court."[3]
  • The outcome: The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a 6-3 decision, holding that a U.S. citizen does not have a constitutionally-vested liberty interest in the citizenship procedures of their spouse.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Sandra Muñoz is a U.S. citizen who is married to El Salvadorean citizen Luis Asencio-Cordero. Asencio-Cordero first arrived in the United States in 2005, and they married in 2010. Muñoz filed a family-based immigrant visa petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on her husband’s behalf and it was approved. In 2015, Asencio-Cordero applied for an immigrant visa at the U.S. consulate in San Salvador. The consular official denied the visa on the basis of Asencio-Cordero's tattoos, claiming they signified gang affiliation. Asencio-Cordero has denied that he has any membership with criminal organizations. The written denial notice cited Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) governing inadmissible aliens , meaning that the official believed Asencio-Cordero would engage in illegal activity if he was granted the visa. The consulate reviewed the determination in 2016 and upheld the decision. Later that year, the U.S. State Department notified Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz that their review agreed with the consulate's ineligibility ruling.[4][5]

    In January 2017, Muñoz and Asencio-Cordero filed a lawsuit challenging the ineligibility determination in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, forwarding the following claims:[4]

    “ The Complaint asserts that (1) the denial of Asencio-Cordero's visa was not facially legitimate and bona fide, such that it infringed on Muñoz's fundamental rights; (2) the denial violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3) the denial violated the separation of powers; (4) the Consulate denied the visa in bad faith, (5) the denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"); and (6) the statute under which the visa was denied, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague. Appellants seek a declaration that the adjudication of Asencio-Cordero's visa application was not bona fide, a declaration that § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is unconstitutional, and other just and proper relief.[6] ”

    The U.S. government moved to dismiss, citing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability—meaning that a consular official's decision is not subject to judicial review. The Central District of California dismissed Asencio-Cordero's challenge, holding that he did not have a right to judicial review of the visa denial. However, the district court rejected the dismissal motion in regard to Muñoz, holding that she had a constitutional interest in the visa application and that the U.S. government failed to provide a factual basis for the denial to her. The case proceeded and the State Department alleged for the first time that the consular official denied the application after concluding Asencio-Cordero was a member of MS-13, a criminal organization. The district court required the government to prove factually that Asencio-Cordero was a member of MS-13, rejecting State's argument that doing so would violate consular nonreviewability and law enforcement privilege. The government did not respond to the court's evidentiary discovery plan and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment because the government had not responded and the plaintiffs claimed the government operated in bad faith in this case.[4][5]

    A month later, the government responded to the court's questions and also filed for summary judgment, invoking the consular nonreviewability doctrine, "even if there were no evidence in the record of Mr. Asencio-Cordero's association with MS-13, the consular officer's citation to § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) provided a facially legitimate and bona fide basis" for denying his visa application. The government also argued that "the consular officer provided a citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) and this citation was supported by the fact that the consular officer determined Mr. Asencio-Cordero was associated with MS-13." The government explained that "the information that is now in the record provides an unambiguous connection to Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), [such that] the visa refusal is facially legitimate and bona fide."[4]

    Five months later, the court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions and the State Department confirmed to the court that it was arguing that law enforcement identified Asencio-Cordero as a member of MS-13 to the consular officer. The Central District of California granted the government's summary judgment motion and denied Muñoz and Asencio-Cordero's motion, holding that the consular officials' actions were not reviewable by a court and that the plaintiffs did not prove that the government operated in bad faith denying Asencio-Cordero's visa.[4]

    On appeal, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding:[4][7]

    “ After the government denied the immigrant visa application of plaintiff-appellant Luis Asencio-Cordero under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), Asencio-Cordero and his U.S.-citizen spouse, plaintiff-appellant Sandra Muñoz, sought judicial review of the government's visa decision and challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague. Concluding that the government was entitled to invoke the doctrine of consular nonreviewability to shield its decision from judicial review, the district court granted summary judgment on all claims to defendants-appellees, the U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and U.S. Consul General in El Salvador, Brendan O'Brien. This appeal followed. Because we conclude that the government failed to provide the constitutionally required notice within a reasonable time period following the denial of Asencio-Cordero's visa application, the government was not entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. We therefore vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings.[6] ”
    —Judge Kermit Lipez


    On September 29, 2023, the U.S. State Department appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.[5] On January 12, 2024, SCOTUS added the case to its merits docket for October Term 2023.

    Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii)

    This legal statute emanates from United States Code Title 8-Aliens and Nationality, Chapter 12 - Immigration and nationality, Subchapter II - Immigration, Part II - Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of Citizens and Aliens. The consular official in this case cited §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), which reads as follows:Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title

    “ §1182. Inadmissible aliens
    (a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
    (3) Security and related grounds
    (A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-
    (ii) any other unlawful activity, or[6]     		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    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. (3) Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial "within a reasonable time," or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court.

    [6]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding that a U.S. citizen does not have a constitutionally-vested liberty interest in the citizenship procedures of their spouse. Justice Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    The bottom line is that procedural due process is an odd vehicle for Muñoz’s argument, and Mandel does not support it. Whatever else it may stand for, Mandel does not hold that a citizen’s independent constitutional right (say, a free speech claim) gives that citizen a procedural due process right to a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for why someone else’s visa was denied. And Muñoz is not constitutionally entitled to one here. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, concurring in judgment.

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    Whether or not Ms. Muñoz had a constitutional right to the information she wanted, the government gave it to her. I therefore would reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision without reaching the government’s constitutional arguments. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    By leaving U. S. citizens without even a factual basis for their spouses’ exclusion, the majority paves the way for arbitrary denials of a right this Court has repeatedly held among the most important to our Nation. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named opinion
    2. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT2023’s last grants?" January 10, 2024
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-334 DEPARTMENT OF STATE V. MUNOZ," filed January 12, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Muñoz v. U.S. Dep't of State, decided October 5, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Department of State v. Muñoz PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed September 29, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Judge Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, sitting by designation, delivered the Ninth Circuit opinion.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 23, 2024
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 23, 2024
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Department_of_State_v._Muñoz&oldid=9591979"