Supreme Court hears L.A. challenge to visa denial over tattoos
Justices seem skeptical of claim that rejection of a Salvadoran man’s application violates his U.S. wife’s rights.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Tuesday about siding with a Los Angeles woman who claimed her constitutional rights were violated when the government denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband, in part over his tattoos.
While some justices said they agreed that denial of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s spouse could in theory infringe on the citizen’s constitutionally protected interests, a majority suggested the government had fulfilled its legal responsibilities in this case.
Former resident Luis Asencio Cordero, who is from El Salvador, has been separated from his wife, L.A. civil rights attorney Sandra Muñoz, since 2015.
The couple sued, arguing the federal government had violated her rights to marriage and due process by failing to provide a timely explanation for denying his visa.
Initially, the government said it denied the visa due to concerns that Asencio Cordero would be likely to engage in unlawful activity if he were allowed back into the U.S.
Later, the couple learned through their lawsuit that the government believed he was an MS-13 gang member, based on his tattoos as well as an interview and background check.
Asencio Cordero denies that his tattoos — which depict the comedy and tragedy theater masks, La Virgen de Guadalupe and a tribal design with a paw print — are affiliated with a gang. A court-approved gang expert concurred.
The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that favored the couple.
Administration lawyers argue that because the pair could live outside the U.S., Muñoz’s right to marriage has not been violated; and that immigration officials have broad discretion over whom to admit into the U.S.
Administration lawyers also say requiring the government to disclose specific details about the evidence used in such decisions would slow processing, pose a risk to public safety and could chill sharing of information with foreign partners.
A long-established judicial doctrine also prevents court reviews of visa decisions except in limited cases.
Curtis Gannon, a Biden administration lawyer, said Muñoz was affected “only indirectly” by the government actions, and she “cannot challenge the denial of her husband’s visa application any more than she could challenge a decision ... at the end of a criminal trial that he would be sent to a prison far across the country.”
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan suggested the government’s initial explanation for the denial was too vague. But other justices suggested that the government had provided sufficient explanation and that judges should not second-guess State Department visa decisions.
Eric Lee, Muñoz’s attorney, said the couple wants to file a new visa application with evidence refuting the MS-13 allegation — with assurance that the federal government will review it.
If the court sides with Muñoz, other families could be entitled to some explanation when they are denied visas. But immigrant advocates worry the court’s conservative majority could instead strengthen consular officers’ broad powers.