Politics

Supreme Court skeptical of siding with L.A. man denied visa over tattoos

Published

2 years ago

April 24, 2024

Press Room

Supreme Court skeptical of siding with L.A. man denied visa over tattoos

WASHINGTON —

For the record:

1:22 p.m. April 23, 2024In a previous version of this article, Luis Asencio Cordero’s surname was misspelled as Acensio Cordero.

Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Tuesday about siding with a Los Angeles woman who claimed her constitutional rights were violated when the government denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband, in part over his tattoos.

While some justices said they agreed that denial of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s spouse could in theory infringe on the citizen’s constitutionally protected interests, a majority suggested the government had fulfilled its legal responsibilities in this case.

Former resident Luis Asencio Cordero, who is from El Salvador, has been separated from his wife, L.A. civil rights attorney Sandra Muñoz, since 2015.

The couple sued, arguing the federal government had violated her rights to marriage and due process by failing to provide a timely explanation for denying his visa.

Initially, the government said it denied the visa due to concerns that Asencio Cordero would be likely to engage in unlawful activity if he were allowed back into the U.S.

Later, the couple learned through their lawsuit that the government believed he was an MS-13 gang member, based on his tattoos as well as an interview and background check.

Asencio Cordero denies that his tattoos — which depict the comedy and tragedy theater masks, La Virgen de Guadalupe and a tribal design with a paw print — are affiliated with a gang. A court-approved gang expert concurred.

The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the couple.

Administration lawyers have argued that because Muñoz and Asencio Cordero could choose to live outside the U.S., her right to marriage has not been violated. The administration also argued that immigration officials have broad discretion when deciding whom to admit into the country.

Administration lawyers also said that requiring the government to disclose specific details about the evidence and intelligence used in such decisions would slow processing, pose a risk to public safety and could chill future information-sharing with foreign partners.

A long-established judicial doctrine prevents court reviews of visa determinations except in limited cases.

Curtis Gannon, a Biden administration attorney, said Muñoz was affected “only indirectly” by the government’s actions.

“Muñoz cannot challenge the denial of her husband’s visa application any more than she could challenge a decision at the end of a removal proceeding that he will be removed from the United States, or at the end of a criminal trial that he would be sent to a prison far across the country,” Gannon told the justices.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the long history of cases establishing the right to marriage. Assuming Muñoz is entitled to protection of that right, she said, the question is what kind of process is enough.

“Here you’re saying she’s entitled to nothing,” Sotomayor said to Gannon. “Why do we have to go that far?”

Sotomayor and fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested the government’s initial explanation for the denial was too vague.

“How does a citation to unlawful activity tell anybody anything?” Sotomayor asked.

Other justices appeared to agree that the government had provided sufficient explanation as currently required under the law, and that State Department decisions on visas should not be second-guessed by judges.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., both conservatives, questioned what additional information or explanation should be required of the government if the case were to be sent back to lower courts for further review, as the couple is seeking.

“Why are we here?” Gorsuch asked. “I’m not sure what the cause of action here is.”

Conservative Justice Amy Cony Barrett said case law doesn’t require the government to explain more than it already has about the visa denial.

“I guess I don’t see why Justice Gorsuch isn’t right, that this is just game over,” she said.

Kagan agreed, questioning why the case was ongoing given that the couple had already gotten what they’d sought: an explanation of the visa denial.

Eric Lee, Muñoz’s attorney, said the couple want to file a new visa application with evidence refuting the MS-13 membership allegation — with assurance that the federal government will review it.

A request for reconsideration is limited to one year after a visa denial. Because Asencio Cordero didn’t know why he had been denied, Lee argued, the couple missed the opportunity to prove the government wrong. Had they known the government believed he was an MS-13 member, the affidavit they later submitted by a gang expert could have been specifically tailored to explain why his tattoos weren’t consistent with the notorious gang.

“It doesn’t give us any guarantee, but that’s what due process requires,” Lee said.

Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested that Lee’s arguments on behalf of the couple appeared contrary to the federal government’s right to control who enters the U.S.

“How do you weigh the liberty interests that you are asserting against the government’s interest in denying visas to people who would present a danger when they get to the United States?” Alito asked.

“I don’t see how you can avoid the conclusion that that involves weighing what I, at least, see as totally disparate and perhaps unweighable interests,” Roberts added.

Lee replied that consular officers have heavy caseloads, “and what we’re asking for is for them to give us enough information to help them make a decision.”

If the court sides with Muñoz, other families could be entitled to some explanation when they are denied visas.

But immigrant advocates worry the court’s conservative majority could instead strengthen consular officers’ broad powers.

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

6 hours ago

January 12, 2026

Press Room

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

: “Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”
Advertisement

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

7 hours ago

January 12, 2026

Press Room

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

8 hours ago

January 12, 2026

Press Room

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.