In a recent immigration case, Department of State v. Muñoz, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that has significant repercussions for married couples, sparking concerns about the future of marriage equality. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with the majority, held that American citizens do not have a constitutional "liberty interest" in living with their foreign spouses, undermining the protections against government discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented, denouncing Barrett's opinion as an attack on marriage equality for LGBTQ+ Americans.

The case revolves around Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen married to Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador. The couple, who have a child together, sought a visa for Asencio-Cordero to live in the United States. However, the State Department denied the visa without providing a clear explanation. Muñoz took legal action and succeeded at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognized a constitutional liberty interest for American citizens to live with their immigrant spouses. The court ruled that the government's denial of the visa infringed on this freedom, requiring them to provide justification for their decision.

However, Justice Barrett's majority opinion not only overturned Muñoz's victory but also declared that there is no constitutional liberty interest for American citizens "to live with their spouse in their country of citizenship." This unprecedented ruling grants the State Department significant discretion in visa decisions, eroding the fundamental right for couples to live together.

It is noteworthy that Justice Neil Gorsuch, typically aligned with the conservative majority, issued a surprising concurrence suggesting that the court need not have reached this discussion in the case. He expressed confusion as to why the majority delved into marital rights when Muñoz had already received the reason for the visa denial, allowing her to reapply.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent serves as a powerful warning about the implications of this decision. She emphasizes that the right to marry is deeply rooted in history and tradition, quoting the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case. Sotomayor argues that the majority's ruling jeopardizes Obergefell and questions the court's commitment to protecting the rights to reside with relatives and make decisions regarding the education of one's children. She emphasizes that marriage extends beyond a mere piece of paper; it encompasses a range of liberties, including the right to live together.

Furthermore, Sotomayor highlights the potential disproportionate burden the ruling places on same-sex couples in binational relationships. The majority's suggestion that affected individuals can relocate to their spouse's country undermines the unique challenges faced by same-sex couples in countries where marriage equality is not recognized or where LGBTQ+ rights are limited.

The dissent raises concerns that this decision, coupled with the court's recent case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, signals a broader shift in the court's approach to substantive due process. Sotomayor argues that the majority's ruling in Muñoz may serve as a catalyst for the overruling of Obergefell.

While responses to the dissent vary, it is clear that Justice Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, is sounding the alarm, drawing attention to the potential vulnerability of marriage equality at the Supreme Court.

The ramifications of the Muñoz decision extend beyond immigration law, with implications for the core principles underlying marriage equality. As the court's composition evolves, these concerns underscore the need for continued scrutiny of decisions that may shape the future of fundamental rights in the United States.