Kerry v. Din
135 S. Ct. 2128
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen, sues after her husband Berashk, Afghan, was denied an immigrant visa under §1182(a)(3)(B).
- Consular officer gave no detailed explanation for Berashk’s inadmissibility; Din sought mandamus, declaratory relief, and due-process review.
- District Court dismissed; Ninth Circuit reversed, finding a protected liberty interest in Din’s marriage entitling judicial review.
- Supreme Court vacates the judgment and remands; plurality holds no due-processRight to Din under historical liberty concepts.
- Justice Kennedy concurrence accepts potential liberty interest but upholds notice as constitutionally adequate; Breyer dissents proposing broader procedural rights.
- Court emphasizes immigration policy is congressional domain; Mandel facially legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Din have a liberty interest protected by due process? | Din asserts a marriage-right liberty interest entitling review. | Government argues no liberty interest; historical immigration regime precludes it. | No due-process liberty interest found |
| If a liberty interest exists, is the notice adequate under Mandel? | Notice must reveal specific grounds and factual basis. | Notice citing §1182(a)(3)(B) suffices; Mandel allows facially legitimate reason. | Notice deemed facially legitimate; adequate under Mandel |
| Does Mandel require a detailed factual explanation for denial? | More detailed facts are necessary for meaningful review. | Statutory framework permits non-detailed notice; security concerns justify brevity. | No, Mandel permits limited explanation; no full factual disclosure required |
| Should the case be remanded or decided on the merits? | Court should address due-process implications and potential remedies. | Court should vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with Mandel. | Case vacated and remanded |
| Does national-security policy override due-process requirements here? | Security concerns demand more detailed exculpatory reasoning. | Executive branch has plenary power; security justifies limited disclosure. | Security concerns do not override Mandel framework; notice adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1972) (facially legitimate and bona fide standard for visa decisions)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (U.S. 1977) (Congressional power over immigration; deference to policy decisions)
- Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1950) (plenarily political nature of entry decisions; no judicially manageable standard)
- Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (historical tradition required for implied fundamental rights)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (liberty interests arise from established entitlements or statutory expectations)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (due-process considerations in national-security contexts)