Supreme Court Decision Casts Doubt On Biden’s Immigration Policy

In a significant judicial rebuke, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that American citizens do not have a constitutional right to secure entry for their noncitizen spouses into the United States. This ruling challenges the foundation of President Joe Biden’s recent executive order aimed at providing amnesty to noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens.

The case originated with Sandra Muñoz, who sued the federal government after her husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, was denied a visa by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2015 due to suspected gang affiliation. Despite Asencio-Cordero disavowing any gang membership and appealing the decision, the Department of State upheld the visa denial. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that noncitizens do not have a constitutional right to enter the U.S.

Muñoz contended that the denial infringed upon her Fifth Amendment rights and her “fundamental right to marriage” by preventing her from living with her husband in the U.S. The Ninth Circuit had initially ruled in her favor, asserting that the Due Process Clause entitled her to a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the visa denial. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that Muñoz’s argument “fails at the threshold” as it does not establish the right to bring her noncitizen spouse to the U.S. as a constitutional right. Barrett noted that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” a criterion Muñoz could not meet. Furthermore, Congress has historically regulated spousal immigration, including imposing bars on admissibility.

Barrett also highlighted that while Congress has streamlined the visa process for immediate relatives, it does not guarantee their entry as a right. “From the beginning, the admission of noncitizens into the country was characterized as ‘of favor [and] not of right,’” she wrote.

This ruling arrives amid Biden’s executive order, which aims to grant amnesty to half a million illegal immigrants, including those married to U.S. citizens. The order seeks to protect these noncitizens from deportation and allow them to reside and work in the U.S.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision does not directly address Biden’s executive order, it casts doubt on the constitutional validity of such broad amnesty measures. The ruling suggests that efforts to extend these protections may lack a solid constitutional foundation, presenting a significant hurdle for the administration’s immigration agenda.

The decision underscores the ongoing judicial scrutiny of executive actions on immigration. As Biden’s administration continues to push for comprehensive immigration reform, this Supreme Court ruling emphasizes the necessity of aligning policy initiatives with constitutional principles. The outcome of this case signals potential challenges ahead for any attempts to expand noncitizen rights through executive orders.