In a recent 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen who challenged the denial of a spousal visa for her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, in the case Department of State v. Muñoz. The decision has stirred controversy due to the potential implications for same-sex couples.

The U.S. consulate in San Salvador rejected Asencio-Cordero's visa application, citing his alleged affiliation with the gang MS-13. However, no specific reasons for the denial were given. As Asencio-Cordero is not a U.S. citizen, he lacks the constitutional right to challenge the decision, leaving Muñoz to question the denial on her own behalf.

Muñoz argued that the denial of her husband's visa violated her constitutional rights, including her right to due process and liberty protected under the Fifth Amendment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing the majority opinion, stated that Muñoz's case relied on the claim that the right to bring a noncitizen spouse to the United States is an unenumerated constitutional right. To establish this premise, Muñoz needed to show that the asserted right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, a burden she failed to meet.

Barrett further pointed out that Congress's longstanding regulation of spousal immigration, including admissibility bars, contradicted Muñoz's argument. The conservative-leaning majority concluded that Muñoz's case did not merit judicial review, citing the importance of preserving Congress's authority over immigration matters.

Liberal-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority opinion. Sotomayor referenced the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the fundamental right to same-sex marriage, highlighting the potential burden that Muñoz's case placed on same-sex couples and others unable to establish a home in the noncitizen spouse's country of origin.

Sotomayor argued that the Court could have resolved the case on narrower grounds, citing the precedent set by the 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel, which acknowledged the burden on citizens' constitutional rights when excluding a noncitizen from the country. She contended that the consular officer's belief, regardless of its validity, presented a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" for the visa denial.

The dissenting justice expressed concern that the majority prioritized a broad interpretation of marriage rights over addressing the specific issues raised by Muñoz's case. Sotomayor concluded that the exclusion of a citizen's spouse burdens their right to marriage and that the Government should have provided a factual basis for its decision.

The Court's decision in Department of State v. Muñoz could have significant implications for same-sex couples and others seeking spousal visas. It highlights the ongoing debate surrounding immigration policies and the balance between individual liberties and government authority.