The Supreme Court Uses Immigration Case to Undermine Marital Rights

In Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. citizen Sandra Muñoz sued the State Department, arguing that her fundamental right to marry was infringed upon when her Salvadoran husband’s visa was denied without explanation. Muñoz won her case at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the government had to provide a reason for the visa denial due to Muñoz’s right to marriage. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, reasoning that there is no constitutional right for an American citizen to live with their non-citizen spouse.

At its core, this case is about immigration, but the Supreme Court has used it to infringe upon marital rights. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor argued that the Court could have resolved the case without specifically addressing marital rights. Justice Barrett initially wrote that there is no right to be given a reason for a spouse’s visa denial, which could––and should––have ended the case since Muñoz was arguing that she had a right to know why her husband was denied a visa. However, the right-wing majority chose to go further, establishing that there is also no constitutional right for an American citizen to live with their non-citizen spouse. Justice Gorsuch, who voted with the majority, concurred, stating that the government had already provided the information Muñoz sought, so the Ninth Circuit’s decision should be reversed without addressing constitutional issues.

The Court is pursuing an anti-LGBTQ agenda, using this immigration case to advance it. Sotomayor noted that the Court’s reasoning contradicts the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. In that landmark ruling, Jim Obergefell and his husband could have stayed in Maryland after they got married there, where same-sex marriage was legal, but they wanted to live together in Ohio. When the Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans across the country, it specifically stated that same-sex couples had the right to have their marriages recognized everywhere so that they could live together in whatever state they wanted. This recent immigration case undermines this by saying that no American citizen has a fundamental right to live with their non-citizen spouse. The Supreme Court is using this immigration case as a precedent to target LGBTQ+ rights in the future.

The Court would not be dominated by justices holding such an anti-LGBTQ agenda if it weren’t for the Electoral College. Three of the justices on this panel were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote despite 69% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage. Yet, we are left with a Supreme Court attempting to undermine LGBTQ+ rights against the desires of the American people. Department of State v. Muñoz was initially an immigration case. However, our undemocratically constructed Supreme Court has used it to threaten marital equality, directly opposing the values of most Americans.

It is imperative that we end the Electoral College to protect democracy. Sign our petition here.