23-334_e18f
MS13 gang members, via Infotracer
The United States Supreme Court released five opinions on Friday, June 21, 2024.
The highly anticipated cases were not among the grouping of opinions released on Friday. These cases include the Trump immunity case, the Murthy v. Missouri free speech case with TGP’s Jim Hoft as a plaintiff, and the case involving the outrageous 1512c charges used to punish J6 protesters with more time in prison.
The Court announced the final release of opinions is set for Wednesday, June 26, 2024!
SCOTUS Blog posted the following on Friday’s rulings.
The court released five opinions in cases from the current term.
In Texas v. New Mexico, the court upholds the U.S.’s objections to a consent decree that would resolve the dispute over each state’s allocation of the waters of the Rio Grande.
The court rules 6-3 in Department of State v. Munoz that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.
In Erlinger v. United States, the court rules that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Smith v. Arizona, the court rules for the state that the confrontation clause does not bar an expert to present an absent analyst’s true statements in support the expert’s opinion.
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order in United States v. Rahimi.
In the Department of State v Munoz opinion the Court ruled that “a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.”
The full opinion is here.
The ruling involves American citizen Sandra Munoz who sued the State Department for the right to bring in her MS-13 husband to the US to live with her in the US.
Respondent Sandra Muñoz is an American citizen. In 2010, she married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador. The couple eventually sought to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero so that they could live together in the United States. Muñoz filed a petition with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to have Asencio-Cordero classified as an immediate relative. (See 8 U. S. C. §§1151(b)(2)(A)(I), 1154(a)(1)(A).) USCIS granted Muñoz’s petition, and Asencio-Cordero traveled to the consulate in San Salvador to apply for a visa. (See §§1154(b), 1202.)
After conducting several interviews with AsencioCordero, a consular officer denied his application, citing §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in” certain specified offenses or “any other unlawful activity.”
Asencio-Cordero guessed that he was denied a visa based on a finding that he was a member of MS–13, a transnational criminal gang. So he disavowed any gang membership, and he and Muñoz pressed the consulate to reconsider the officer’s finding. When the consulate refused, they appealed to the Department of State, which agreed with the consulate’s determination. Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz then sued the Department of State and others (collectively, State Department), claiming that it 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 Post Millennial has more.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Department of State v Munoz, ruling that “a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.”
“Munoz’s claim to a procedural due process right in someone else’s legal proceeding would have unsettling collateral consequences. Her position would usher in a new strain of constitutional law—one that prevents the government from taking actions that ‘indirectly or incidentally’ burden a citizen’s legal rights,” a syllabus of the court’s opinion states.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the decision for the majority that Luis Asencio-Cordero sought to enter the US to live with his wife, Sandra Munoz, but his visa was denied by a consular officer who found that Asencio-Cordero was affiliated with the violent gang MS-13.
“Because of national security concerns, the consular officer did not disclose the basis for his decision. And because Asencio-Cordero, as a noncitizen, has no constitutional right to enter the United States, he cannot elicit that information or challenge the denial of his visa,” Barrett wrote, adding that Munoz, as a US citizen, filed a challenge to the consular officer’s decision.
The post SCOTUS Rules on Lawsuit Filed by US Citizen Who Was Angry that Her Foreign Spouse Who Is Alleged Members of MS-13 Was Denied US Citizenship appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.