In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has decided 6-3 against a Los Angeles woman, Sandra Muñoz, who argued that her constitutional rights were violated when her Salvadoran husband was denied a visa due to his tattoos being viewed as gang-related. The ruling has far-reaching implications for Americans with foreign spouses, as it explicitly rejects the notion that a citizen has a constitutional right to bring their noncitizen spouse into the country.

Led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the majority asserted that while Muñoz has a fundamental right to marriage, she failed to establish that this right extends to living with her husband in the United States. Barrett emphasized that Congress has long regulated spousal immigration and has the authority to set bars on admissibility, thus concluding that "a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

The case revolves around Muñoz's husband, Luis Asencio Cordero, who had been living in the US until 2015 when his visa was denied during a consular interview in El Salvador. Muñoz and Asencio Cordero sought to file a new visa application, refuting the allegations of his alleged gang membership and requesting assurance that the government would review it. However, the government cited concerns that Asencio Cordero could engage in unlawful activities if allowed back into the US as the reason for the visa denial.

Muñoz argued that the government violated her rights to marriage and due process by not providing a timely explanation for her husband's visa denial. It was during the lawsuit that the couple learned the government believed Asencio Cordero was part of the MS-13 gang based on his tattoos, interviews, and a background check. However, Asencio Cordero has no criminal history in either the US or El Salvador, and a court-approved gang expert agreed that his tattoos were not affiliated with a gang.

The Supreme Court ruling upholds a long-established judicial policy known as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which prevents court reviews of visa determinations, except in limited cases. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of Muñoz and Asencio Cordero in 2022, but the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, arguing that Muñoz's right to marriage had not been violated since they could choose to live outside the US.

The majority justified their decision by expressing concerns about the potential "unsettling collateral consequences" if Muñoz's claims were upheld. They questioned whether a citizen could challenge their spouse's assignment to a remote prison or overseas military deployment or if an immigrant spouse's deportation proceedings could be challenged. Justice Barrett argued that the Constitution does not prevent the government from indirectly burdening a citizen's legal rights.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor stating that excluding a citizen's spouse burdens the right to marriage and that the government should provide at least a factual basis for its decision. She also criticized the majority for limiting the court's longstanding precedent on the fundamental right to marriage. Sotomayor pointed to the Loving vs. Virginia case, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, as an example of how the right to marriage should be upheld regardless of where a couple chooses to make their home.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, immigrant advocates have voiced their concerns, referring to it as another form of family separation. The National Immigrant Justice Center stated that it will make litigation by families in similar situations nearly impossible in the future. Muñoz and Asencio Cordero's attorney, Eric Lee, also expressed worry about the potential repercussions of the decision, particularly regarding other rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as gay marriage.

The ruling marks a setback for Americans hoping to bring their noncitizen spouses to the US and could have broader implications for the interpretation of constitutional rights in immigration cases.