SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks during a panel discussion at the Civic Learning Week National Forum at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. on March 12, 2024.
(Photo: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Sotomayor: Ruling Against Foreign Spouses Will 'Most Heavily' Harm Same-Sex Couples
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws."
Jun 21, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned Friday that her right-wing colleagues' finding that American citizens have no right to have their foreign spouses admitted to the United States will disproportionately harm same-sex couples—and could foreshadow a future reversal of federal LGBTQ+ marriage equality.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Department of State v. Muñoz that Sandra Muñoz, a civil rights attorney and U.S. citizen, "does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."
As Courthouse News Service explained:
[Muñoz] argued that her right to live with her noncitizen husband, Luis Ascencio-Cordero, in the United States was implicit in the "liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that denying his visa request deprived her of that liberty and violated her due process rights.
The consular officer who denied her husband's application violated her right to due process by not disclosing the reason her husband was deemed "inadmissible,'" which opens the officer's decision to judicial review, despite visa denials normally being unreviewable.
Muñoz later found out during litigation in federal court that the decision was based on the officer's finding that Ascencio-Cordero's tattoos were associated with the transnational gang MS-13 and his concern that he would commit crimes upon entering the country.
In her dissent, Sotomayor cited Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition," Sotomayor wrote. "The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure."
Sotomayor contended that her conservative colleagues were committing the "same fatal error" in "requiring too 'careful [a] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest'" as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 ruling that erased half a century of federal abortion rights.
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws to vindicate one of the 'basic civil rights of man' and live alongside their spouses," she added. "Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality."
" Obergefell rejected what the majority does today as 'inconsistent with the approach this court has used in discussing fundamental rights' of 'marriage and intimacy'," Sotomayor opined. "The burden will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and others who lack the ability, for legal or financial reasons, to make a home in the noncitizen spouse's country of origin."
Sotomayor's assertion that the majority's decision erodes
LGBTQ+ marriage protections follows far-right Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion in Dobbs that the high court should reexamine the right to same-sex marriage—and even the abolition of laws banning sexual relations between adults of the same sex—at some future date.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
sonia sotomayoru.s. supreme courtsame-sex marriageclarence thomaslgbtqimmigrationdobbs v. jackson women's health organizationobergefell v. hodges
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned Friday that her right-wing colleagues' finding that American citizens have no right to have their foreign spouses admitted to the United States will disproportionately harm same-sex couples—and could foreshadow a future reversal of federal LGBTQ+ marriage equality.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Department of State v. Muñoz that Sandra Muñoz, a civil rights attorney and U.S. citizen, "does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."
As Courthouse News Service explained:
[Muñoz] argued that her right to live with her noncitizen husband, Luis Ascencio-Cordero, in the United States was implicit in the "liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that denying his visa request deprived her of that liberty and violated her due process rights.
The consular officer who denied her husband's application violated her right to due process by not disclosing the reason her husband was deemed "inadmissible,'" which opens the officer's decision to judicial review, despite visa denials normally being unreviewable.
Muñoz later found out during litigation in federal court that the decision was based on the officer's finding that Ascencio-Cordero's tattoos were associated with the transnational gang MS-13 and his concern that he would commit crimes upon entering the country.
In her dissent, Sotomayor cited Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition," Sotomayor wrote. "The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure."
Sotomayor contended that her conservative colleagues were committing the "same fatal error" in "requiring too 'careful [a] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest'" as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 ruling that erased half a century of federal abortion rights.
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws to vindicate one of the 'basic civil rights of man' and live alongside their spouses," she added. "Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality."
" Obergefell rejected what the majority does today as 'inconsistent with the approach this court has used in discussing fundamental rights' of 'marriage and intimacy'," Sotomayor opined. "The burden will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and others who lack the ability, for legal or financial reasons, to make a home in the noncitizen spouse's country of origin."
Sotomayor's assertion that the majority's decision erodes
LGBTQ+ marriage protections follows far-right Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion in Dobbs that the high court should reexamine the right to same-sex marriage—and even the abolition of laws banning sexual relations between adults of the same sex—at some future date.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned Friday that her right-wing colleagues' finding that American citizens have no right to have their foreign spouses admitted to the United States will disproportionately harm same-sex couples—and could foreshadow a future reversal of federal LGBTQ+ marriage equality.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Department of State v. Muñoz that Sandra Muñoz, a civil rights attorney and U.S. citizen, "does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."
As Courthouse News Service explained:
[Muñoz] argued that her right to live with her noncitizen husband, Luis Ascencio-Cordero, in the United States was implicit in the "liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that denying his visa request deprived her of that liberty and violated her due process rights.
The consular officer who denied her husband's application violated her right to due process by not disclosing the reason her husband was deemed "inadmissible,'" which opens the officer's decision to judicial review, despite visa denials normally being unreviewable.
Muñoz later found out during litigation in federal court that the decision was based on the officer's finding that Ascencio-Cordero's tattoos were associated with the transnational gang MS-13 and his concern that he would commit crimes upon entering the country.
In her dissent, Sotomayor cited Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition," Sotomayor wrote. "The majority today chooses a broad holding on marriage over a narrow one on procedure."
Sotomayor contended that her conservative colleagues were committing the "same fatal error" in "requiring too 'careful [a] description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest'" as they did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 ruling that erased half a century of federal abortion rights.
"The majority's failure to respect the right to marriage in this country consigns U.S. citizens to rely on the fickle grace of other countries' immigration laws to vindicate one of the 'basic civil rights of man' and live alongside their spouses," she added. "Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality."
" Obergefell rejected what the majority does today as 'inconsistent with the approach this court has used in discussing fundamental rights' of 'marriage and intimacy'," Sotomayor opined. "The burden will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and others who lack the ability, for legal or financial reasons, to make a home in the noncitizen spouse's country of origin."
Sotomayor's assertion that the majority's decision erodes
LGBTQ+ marriage protections follows far-right Justice Clarence Thomas' suggestion in Dobbs that the high court should reexamine the right to same-sex marriage—and even the abolition of laws banning sexual relations between adults of the same sex—at some future date.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.