23-334_e18f
The U.S. Supreme Court issued five opinions on Friday, June 21, 2024.
Those highly anticipated cases were not among the opinions released Friday. These cases include the Trump immunity case, Murthy v. Missouri Free Speech with TGP’s Jim Hoft as the plaintiff, and the outrageous 1512c charges used to punish J6 protesters with longer jail terms case.
The Court announced that its final opinion will be issued on Wednesday, June 26, 2024!
The SCOTUS blog posted the following in response to Friday’s ruling.
The court issued 5 opinions on this case.
- exist Texas v. New Mexicothe court upheld U.S. objections to a consent decree that would resolve states’ disputes over allocations of Rio Grande waters.
- The court ruled 6-3 Department of State v. Muñoz Citizens do not have a fundamental freedom interest in the admission of their non-citizen spouses to the country.
- exist Ehlinger v. United Statesthe court ruled that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which provides for mandatory custodial sentences, judges should use a preponderance of the evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions, otherwise the jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt .
- exist smith v. arizonathe court held that the confrontation clause did not prohibit the expert from providing factual statements from the absent analyst in support of the expert’s opinion.
- The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bars people who have been subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. United States v. Rahimi.
In Department of State v. Muñoz, the court ruled that “citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in the admission of their noncitizen spouses to the country.”
The full opinion is here.
The ruling involves Sandra Munoz, a U.S. citizen who sued the State Department to gain the right to bring her MS-13 husband to the United States to live with her.
Respondent Sandra Munoz is a U.S. citizen. In 2010, she married El Salvadoran citizen Luis Asensio-Cordero. The couple eventually sought an immigrant visa for Asensio-Cordero so they could live together in the United States. Munoz filed a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to list Asensio-Cordero as an immediate relative. (See 8 USC §§1151(b)(2)(A)(I), 1154(a)(1)(A).) USCIS approved Muñoz’s application, and Asencio-Cordero went to the San Salvador Consulate to apply for the visa. . (See Sections 1154(b), 1202.)
After multiple interviews with Asencio Cordero, a consular officer denied his application, citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), which states that the officer “knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that , seeking to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in “certain specified criminal conduct or “any other unlawful activity.”
Asencio-Cordero speculated that he was denied a visa because he was a member of MS-13, A transnational criminal group. As a result, he denies any gang membership, and he and Muñoz urged the consulate to reconsider the officer’s findings. When the consulate refused, they appealed to the State Department, which agreed with the consulate’s decision. Asensio-Cordero and Muñoz subsequently sued the State Department and other agencies (collectively, the State Department), claiming that the State Department failed to provide sufficient justification for Asensio-Cordero’s alleged conduct under the “unlawful activity” column.
There’s more to the post-millennial generation.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in State Department v. Muñoz that “citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in the admission of their non-citizen spouses.”
“Muñoz’s assertion of procedural due process rights in others’ legal proceedings will have troubling collateral consequences. Her stance would usher in a new kind of constitution – one that prevents the government from taking ‘indirect or incidental’ Actions that harm citizens’ legitimate rights,” the court’s outline of the opinion states.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority ruling that Luis Asencio-Cordero tried to enter the United States to be with his wife, Sandra Mooney Asensio Cordero was living with Sandra Munoz, but his visa was denied by a consular officer who discovered that Asensio Cordero had ties to violent groups.
“Due to national security concerns, the consular officer did not disclose the basis for his decision. Because Asensio-Cordero, as a non-citizen, did not have a constitutional right to enter the United States, he was unable to obtain this information or challenge the denial of the visa. To the consul Official’s decision.
