Department of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899

Background

Sandra Muñoz, a U.S. citizen, married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a Salvadoran citizen, and petitioned for his immigrant visa so they could live together in the United States.
After USCIS approved the initial petition, Asencio-Cordero was required to apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate in El Salvador, where his application was denied based on suspected affiliation with the MS-13 gang under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii).
The consulate provided only a statutory citation as reason for denial, and refused to give further details even after repeated requests and submission of evidence denying gang ties.
Muñoz sued, arguing that the denial without a sufficient explanation violated her constitutional right to live with her spouse in her country under the Due Process Clause.
The district court ruled for the State Department, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Muñoz had a protected liberty interest requiring the government to provide a reason for denial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does a U.S. citizen have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse’s admission?	Muñoz argued denial of her husband’s visa abridged her constitutional right to live with her spouse in the U.S.	The State Department argued no such constitutional right exists; immigration exclusions are a sovereign political power and historically discretionary.	No; citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in admitting their noncitizen spouses.
Does the Due Process Clause require the government to provide reasons for the visa denial?	Muñoz claimed due process required a sufficiently detailed explanation for the denial.	The government asserted that, especially for crime/national security exclusions, the statute does not require such an explanation.	No; procedural due process does not require more disclosure than the statute provides.
Is the doctrine of consular nonreviewability limited when a citizen’s constitutional rights are allegedly burdened?	Muñoz sought judicial review based on alleged burden to her constitutional rights.	The State Department claimed the doctrine broadly bars review, absent a fundamental right.	The exception is narrow and does not apply when there is no fundamental right.
Does providing a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” satisfy Mandel for due process purposes?	Muñoz argued that the government’s late disclosure and lack of specifics were insufficient.	The State Department contended that citing the applicable statute and reason suffices under precedent.	Under the circumstances, the government’s actions were sufficient; no further process was required.

Key Cases Cited

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (affirming broad government discretion over noncitizen admission, including spouses).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (establishing the “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” standard for visa denials affecting constitutional rights).
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (articulating standard for recognition of unenumerated fundamental rights as "deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition").
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) (reaffirming consular nonreviewability except in narrow circumstances).
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (noting Congress’s broad power over immigration, including family-based preferences).