Kerry v. Din

Last updated

Kerry v. Din
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 2015
Decided June 15, 2015
Full case name John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners v. Fauzia Din
Docket no. 13–1402
Citations576 U.S. 86 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 2128; 192 L. Ed. 2d 183
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, Din v. Clinton, No. 3:10-cv-00533, 2010 WL 2560492 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2010); reversed, Din v. Kerry, 718 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014).
Holding
Consular agents did not violate procedural due process when they did not disclose reasons for denying a visa application
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
PluralityScalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas
ConcurrenceKennedy (in judgment), joined by Alito
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, [1] he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” [2] Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse. [3]

Contents

Writing for a plurality of the court, [fn 1] Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there is no constitutional right to live with one’s spouse, and because Din was not denied “life, liberty, or property,” she was not entitled to due process. [6] Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Din was denied liberty without due process of law, and that there is a fundamental right for spouses to “live together and to raise a family,” which enjoys basic due process protections. [7] In the weeks following the announcement of the Court's decision, some analysts suggested the Justices' opinions in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome in Obergefell v. Hodges . [8]

Background

Immigration and Nationality Act visa requirements

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits non-citizens from entering the United States without a visa. [9] The Act allows individuals classified as "immediate relatives" of those living in the United States to apply for a visa at a United States Embassy or consular office. [9] However, non-citizen "immediate relatives" are ineligible for admission into the United States if they provide "material support to a terrorist organization" or serve "as a terrorist organization’s representative." [10]

Kanishka Berashk's visa application

Fauzia Din arrived to the United States from Afghanistan as a refugee in the year 2000, and she became a naturalized citizen in 2007. [11] In 2006, she married Kanishka Berashk, who was a former civil servant in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. [12] Din filed paperwork to classify Berashk as an "immediate relative," and Berashk filed a visa application to gain entry to the United States. [13] The United States Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan reviewed Berashk's application and conducted an interview but ultimately denied his visa application. [13] A consular official informed Berashk he was ineligible for entry under the portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act that precludes admission for individuals with connections to terrorist organizations, but the official provided no further explanation for this determination. [13]

Because Berashk was an unadmitted, non-resident alien, he had no right of entry into the United States and could not challenge his denial of his visa application. [14] Consequently, Din filed suit in United States District Court, where she claimed the government denied her due process of law by depriving her of her "constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse" and for denying her husband's visa application without adequate explanation. [12] The District Court rejected Din's claims, [15] but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Din had "a protected liberty interest in marriage that entitled [her] to review of the denial of [her] spouse’s visa." [16] The United States appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 2, 2014. [17]

Judgment of the Court

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the constitution protects "the right of spouses to live together and to raise a family." Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the constitution protects "the right of spouses to live together and to raise a family."

In his plurality opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there is no constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse. [19] He argued that under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, citizens are only entitled to redress if they are denied "life, liberty, or property." [20] Because visa applications have not historically been understood as "life, liberty, or property," the denial of a visa application does not implicate Fifth Amendment due process protections. [21] Additionally, Justice Scalia rejected the argument that the denial of the visa application implicated a fundamental liberty interest. [22] Although Justice Scalia conceded that Loving v. Virginia and its progeny “invok[e] a fundamental right to marriage,” the parties “implicitly concede that no such right has been infringed in this case.” [23]

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion

In Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion concurring in the judgment, he argued that the Court need not rule upon whether Din has a right to live with her spouse. [24] Even if the Court assumed that Din did have a fundamental liberty interest in living with her spouse, "the notice she received regarding her husband’s visa denial satisfied due process." [25] Justice Kennedy concluded that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” [26]

Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent in which he argued that consular officials had denied Din due process by preventing her from living with her husband. [27] He wrote that the Supreme Court "has long recognized, the institution of marriage, which encompasses the right of spouses to live together and to raise a family, is central to human life, requires and enjoys community support, and plays a central role in most individuals’ 'orderly pursuit of happiness.'" [28] Additionally, Justice Breyer argued that the notice provided to Berashk was inadequate, and was the equivalent of "telling a criminal defendant only that he is accused of 'breaking the law.'" [29]

Commentary and analysis

Reaction to the Court's decision

In the weeks following the Court's decision, some analysts criticized the Court's ruling for focusing too much attention on "social norms" and not enough attention on the realities of the immigrant experience. [30] The Los Angeles Times' editorial board criticized the Court for allowing consular officials to deny a visa "simply by asserting a vague connection to terrorism." [31] Others noted that the lack of a majority opinion meant that the case would likely have little precedential value in the future. [32] Because Justice Kennedy was the only Justice to not author a majority opinion from the February sitting, some commentators believed that he was initially assigned the role of writing an opinion for the majority of the Court, but three justices defected sometime after the assignment was made. [33] In June 2015, Nina Totenberg reported that Din was in the process of submitting further character evidence about her husband to the State Department so that officials can re-evaluate Berashk's visa application. [34]

Speculation about Obergefell v. Hodges

In light of the case's extensive discussion about fundamental rights associated with marriage, analysts suggested the Justices' views in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome of Court's upcoming decision in Obergefell v. Hodges . [35] Some commentators even described the opinion as a "proxy war" for the debate in Obergefell. [36] Other commentators opined that Justice Kennedy's narrow concurrence in Kerry v. Din was evidence he would ultimately write the majority opinion in Obergefell. [37] When the Court ultimately released its decision in Obergefell, Justice Kennedy was the author of the majority's opinion, while Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all wrote dissenting opinions. [38]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In plurality opinions, a majority of Justices agree upon the proper disposition of the case, but “no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five justices.” [4] When analyzing a plurality opinion, “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . .” [5]

Related Research Articles

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

<i>Rapanos v. United States</i> 2006 United States Supreme Court case

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a plurality of the Court held that a minority group must constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in an area before section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the creation of a legislative district to prevent dilution of that group's votes.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

<i>Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection</i> 2010 United States Supreme Court case

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and, therefore, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. This was a 5-4 plurality decision, with Justice Breyer's opinion being joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a concurring opinion. There were dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.

References

  1. ↑ Kerry v. Din,No. 13-1402 , 576 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting that Justice Scalia's plurality opinion "is not controlling"); see also Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (holding that in plurality opinions, the narrowest concurring opinion is the controlling opinion).
  2. ↑ Din, slip op. at 5-6 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  3. ↑ Din, slip op. at 6 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  4. ↑ Marks, 430 U.S. at 193.
  5. ↑ Marks, 430 U.S. at 193 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  6. ↑ Din, slip op. at 15 (2015) (plurality opinion).
  7. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1-2 (plurality opinion).
  8. ↑ See, e.g., Kevin Johnson, Opinion Analysis: Limited judicial review of consular officer visa decisions – foreshadowing the result in the same-sex marriage case? SCOTUSblog, (Jun. 15, 2015, 5:02 PM); Ruthann Robson, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Does Immigration Marriage Case Foreshadow Same-Sex Marriage Case? (Accessed June 15, 2015); Ian Millhiser, Thinkprogress, Justice Scalia Turns Obscure Immigration Case Into A Proxy War Over Marriage Equality (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  9. 1 2 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.
  10. ↑ Din, slip op. at 2 (plurality opinion) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)).
  11. ↑ Din, slip op. at 2-3 (plurality opinion).
  12. 1 2 Din, slip op. at 1, 3 (plurality opinion).
  13. 1 2 3 Din, slip op. at 3 (plurality opinion).
  14. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1 (plurality opinion) (citing Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972)).
  15. ↑ Din v. Clinton, No.3:10-cv-00533 ( N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2010).
  16. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1, 3 (plurality opinion) (citing Din v. Kerry, 718 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2013)) (internal quotations omitted).
  17. ↑ Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 44 (2014).
  18. ↑ Din, slip op. at 2-3 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
  19. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1 (plurality opinion).
  20. ↑ Din, slip op. at 3-4 (plurality opinion) (citing Swarthout v. Cooke , 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam)).
  21. ↑ Din, slip op. at 4-5 (plurality opinion).
  22. ↑ Din, slip op. at 6-11 (plurality opinion).
  23. ↑ Din, slip op. at 7, 11–15 (plurality opinion).
  24. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1-2 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  25. ↑ Din, slip op. at 1 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  26. ↑ Din, slip op. at 5-6 Kennedy, J., concurring).
  27. ↑ Din, slip op. at 2-4 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
  28. ↑ Din, slip op. at 2-3 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)).
  29. ↑ Din, slip op. at 7-9 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
  30. ↑ See, e.g., Elizabeth Keyes, ImmigrationProf Blog, Symposium on Kerry v. Din: Another Choiceless Choice (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  31. ↑ Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, The "Terrorist" Who Didn't Get A U.S. Visa (June 17, 2015).
  32. ↑ See, e.g., Chuck Roth, ImmigrationProf Blog, Symposium on Kerry v. Din: What Is the "Holding" of Kerry v. Din? (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  33. ↑ Josh Blackman, JoshBlackman.com Who Will Write The Remaining Three Opinions Since AMK (Probably) Lost Ayala Majority? (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  34. ↑ Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio, High Court Sides With Government On Spousal Visa Denial (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  35. ↑ See, e.g., Kevin Johnson, Opinion Analysis: Limited judicial review of consular officer visa decisions – foreshadowing the result in the same-sex marriage case? SCOTUSblog, (Jun. 15, 2015, 5:02 PM); Ruthann Robson, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Does Immigration Marriage Case Foreshadow Same-Sex Marriage Case? (Accessed June 15, 2015).
  36. ↑ Ian Millhiser, Thinkprogress, Justice Scalia Turns Obscure Immigration Case Into A Proxy War Over Marriage Equality (Accessed June 29, 2015).
  37. ↑ Nicholas Datlowe, Former Taliban Civil Servant’s Wife Not Entitled to Visa Denial Explanation, 83 U.S.L.W. 1899 (June 16, 2015).
  38. ↑ Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
External audio
Nuvola apps arts.svg Kerry v. Din, Supreme Court Oral Argument, 02/23/15
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.