In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court has ruled against a California woman who claimed her rights were violated when her husband was denied entry into the United States due to the interpretation of his tattoos. The court found that citizens do not have an inherent right to participate in federal government decisions regarding the immigration status of their spouses.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reading the majority opinion joined by her conservative colleagues, stated that while Congress has made it easier for spouses to immigrate, it has never granted spousal immigration as an absolute right. Barrett emphasized that while citizens have a fundamental right to marriage, this does not translate into limiting Congress' sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners.

However, in a dissenting opinion joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that denying citizens the right to seek specific reasons for the denial of their spouses' entry undermines the significance of the right to marriage in the immigration context.

The case revolved around Los Angeles civil rights attorney Sandra Muñoz, who has been separated from her Salvadoran husband for nearly a decade. The couple began the process of acquiring an immigrant visa shortly after their marriage in 2010. Muñoz's husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, who was residing in the U.S. without legal status, had to travel to the consulate in San Salvador to complete the application. Unfortunately, the consular officer at the consulate denied his application, citing a law that prohibits entry for individuals potentially involved in unlawful activities. Despite filing a lawsuit, Muñoz and her husband were never given a more specific reason for the denial, until they learned that it was partially based on the consular officer's interpretation of his tattoos, which were assumed to be affiliated with the gang MS-13.

Initially, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Muñoz, ordering the State Department to disclose the reason behind the denial and reconsider the visa application. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision after the State Department appealed.

The ruling comes as a setback for Muñoz and others in similar situations, highlighting the limited rights citizens have in challenging immigration decisions made by the federal government. As the issue of immigration continues to be highly contentious in the United States, the Supreme Court's decision is likely to spark further debate over the balance between national security concerns and individual rights within the immigration system.