In a case that could redefine marital rights, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled Monday that spouses don’t have a constitutional right to get more information on certain immigration rulings.
The court ruled 5-4 in a case that centered on Fauzia Din’s request to get a visa for her Afghan husband, Kanishka Berashk. The visa was denied because he was involved in unspecified terrorist activities. Berashk is a former civil servant in the Taliban regime.
Din, a naturalized U.S. citizen, sued because she was unable to get a more detailed explanation of the visa denial. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government denied her right to liberty and due process.
However, a majority of the justices found that the lack of adequate explanation for the visa denial did not deprive Din of her constitutional right to live in the U.S. with her spouse.
“There is no such constitutional right,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
The Kerry v. Din case was remanded to the lower courts that initially ruled in favor of the government.
Scalia was joined by perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
However, the government cannot deprive an individual of certain liberty or property interests, wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in the dissenting opinion.
The government effectively denied Din her liberty to live with her husband in the United States, Beyer wrote. Joining him in the dissent were Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The court has long recognized that marriage encompasses the rights of spouses to live together and plays a central role in the pursuit of happiness, Breyer wrote.
