Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with a consular officer in the Department of State. Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), any noncitizen whom a consular officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in *** unlawful activity” is ineligible to receive a visa or be admitted to the United States. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen. 2. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(8)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due. 3. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(i) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial “within a reasonable time,” or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court. (I)
2024-06-21
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Barrett, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-334new_hfci.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined.
2024-04-23
Argued. For petitioners: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Eric T. Lee, Southfeld, Mich.
2024-04-12
Reply of petitioners Department of State, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-04-02
Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and available with the Clerk.
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of 35 Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of ACLU, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Lawyers Association and The American Immigration Council filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Former Consular Officers filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Migrant Rights Initiative, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law and History Scholars filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Professors and Scholars filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amicus curiae of HEAL Refugee Health and Asylum Collaborative filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Former Department of Homeland Security Officials filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amici curiae of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-28
Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-27
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-27
Brief amicus curiae of HIAS Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-21
Brief of respondents Sandra Muñoz, et al. filed.
2024-02-26
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.
2024-02-21
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2024-02-20
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed.)
2024-02-20
Brief of petitioners Department of State, et al. filed.
2024-02-16
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.
2024-01-12
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
2024-01-12
Petition GRANTED limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.
2024-01-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2024.
2023-12-13
Reply of petitioners Department of State, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-12-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-11-28
Brief of respondents Sandra Muñoz, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-10-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 29, 2023.
2023-10-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 30, 2023 to November 29, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-09-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 30, 2023)
2023-09-29
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.