Connect with us

Politics

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

Published

on

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

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Politics

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

Published

on

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge criticized the process by which California’s voter-approved congressional map to redraw districts to favor Democrats in a dissenting opinion, saying the state engaged in “racial gerrymandering.”

Judge Kenneth Lee noted his concerns about race being a factor in his dissent as a panel of judges voted 2-1 to uphold the map.

“California sullied its hands with this sordid business when it engaged in racial gerrymandering as part of its mid-decade congressional redistricting plan to add five more Democratic House seats,” Lee wrote. 

“We know race likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker who drew the congressional redistricting map adopted by the California state legislature,” he added. 

Advertisement

DOJ ACCUSES DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN ARM OF OBSTRUCTION IN LAWSUIT OVER CALIFORNIA REDISTRICTING

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo)

The court rejected a claim by Republicans that the map approved as part of Proposition 50 violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing maps to favor Hispanic and Latino voters.

READ THE COURT ORDER – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

The decision allows California to use the map, which could give Democrats more House seats. The California Republican Party said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction. 

Advertisement

“The well-reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court,” California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement. “The map drawer’s plain statements acknowledging that he racially gerrymandered the Proposition 50 maps, which he and the legislature refused to explain or deny, in addition to our experts’ testimony, established that the courts should stop the implementation of the Prop 50 map. We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.” 

REPUBLICANS PUSH BACK OVER ‘FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM’ IN BLOCKBUSTER REDISTRICTING FIGHT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a “Yes On Prop 50” volunteer event at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles. (Getty Images)

Lee noted that mapmaker Paul Mitchell refused to appear before the panel, but had allegedly publicly boasted to his political allies that he drew the map to “ensure that the Latino districts.”

“In embarking on a mid-decade redistricting plan to create more Democratic-friendly districts, California relied on race to create at least one Latino-majority congressional district,” he wrote. “To be clear, as the majority explains, California began its mid-cycle redistricting attempt after Texas initiated its own redistricting in favor of Republicans. But that larger partisan goal does not negate that California’s Democratic state legislature sought to maintain and expand a racial spoils system.”

Advertisement

Prop 50 was the result of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders asking voters whether the state should redraw congressional lines by targeting five Republican strongholds. 

The move was a countermeasure to Texas’ efforts to send more Republicans to the House. 

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 – to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas – and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also launched a redistricting push in his state. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

House maps are typically redrawn every 10 years following the census, and the process rarely takes place mid-decade.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

Published

on

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act Thursday as part of his immigration crackdown, blaming politicians in Minnesota who have opposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ presence in the city and decried their violence against protesters.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

The president made his threat a day after a federal immigration officer shot a Minneapolis man in the leg. The agency said the man attacked federal officers with a shovel and a broom as they tried to complete a targeted traffic stop.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he could deploy federal troops to the state.

Protests have intensified in the Minnesota city in the last week since an ICE agent shot Renee Good, a local woman who was part of a group observing ICE activity, in the head.

Advertisement

Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was killed as she took part in an “ICE watch” protest documenting federal immigration activity, after three ICE agents surrounded her SUV on a snowy street.

Bystander videos shows one immigration officer ordering Good out of the vehicle and grabbing the door handle as another agent, Jonathan Ross, positions himself in front of her vehicle. As she begins to move the SUV forward, Ross raises his weapon and fires at least three shots at close range.

Ross suffered internal bleeding to his torso from the encounter, according to a statement from Homeland Security officials provided to the Associated Press.

“I would say that our agent is beat up, he’s bruised, he’s injured, he’s getting treatment,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters Thursday, saying the agency was “thankful that he made it out alive.”

Video from the incident showed Ross curse at Good after shooting her then walking away from the incident.

Advertisement

After Good was fatally shot, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis” and dubbed federal claims that its officers killed Good in self defense “bulls—.” Still, he has urged residents to act peacefully, warning them Trump could call in the military.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has also spoken out against ICE and earlier this week, the state’s Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, asking the court to block the surge of Homeland Security agents into the state and declare it unconstitutional and unlawful.

“Over the last week, we’ve seen federal agents arresting, threatening, and using force against innocent bystanders,” Walz said Monday in a statement. “They have carried out enforcement actions in schools, at hospitals, and in one horrific instance shot and killed someone… This operation was never about safety, it’s a targeted political operation and Minnesota won’t stand for it.”

On Thursday, Noem singled out Walz for criticism, telling reporters outside the White House that the Minnesota governor is “still is not willing to work with our federal officers to bring peace to the streets of Minneapolis.”

The federal government had no plans to pull out of Minnesota, Noem said, noting she had discussed the Insurrection Act with Trump.

Advertisement

“He certainly has the constitutional authority to utilize that,” she said. “My hope is that this leadership team in Minnesota will start to work with us to get criminals off the streets.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche has also singled out Walz and Frey.

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” he said on X. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

The Insurrection Act, established in 1807, is a federal law that allows a president to deploy the military domestically to suppress in specific circumstances, such as civil disorder, an insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he would be empowering the military to make arrests and perform searches on U.S. soil. In normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law enacted after the Civil War, forbids active-duty federal forces to provide regular civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Advertisement

The president first threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020, but members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move. In June 2025, he repeated the threat against protesters in Los Angeles as people took to the streets to protest ICE raids.

“The people who are causing the problems are bad people,” Trump told reporters then, “they are insurrectionists.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

Published

on

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is supporting legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights.

The governor said on Tuesday during her State of the State address that she wants to allow New Yorkers to “hold ICE agents accountable in court when they act outside the scope of their duties.”

“This doesn’t interfere with lawful enforcement or public safety,” Hochul said. “It simply affirms a core truth: Power does not justify abuse. And if someone’s constitutional rights are violated here in the state of New York, I say they deserve their day in court.”

Last year, New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Micah Lasher proposed measures to allow private citizens to file lawsuits against federal officials who violate their constitutional rights.

Advertisement

REP RO KHANNA DEMANDS PROSECUTION OF ICE AGENT IN MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is backing legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights. (Julia Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Lasher’s version cites Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which allows people to sue state and local officials for violating their rights. The proposal highlights that New York does not have a law in place allowing citizens to sue federal officials.

“Every day, ICE is terrorizing our communities & violating our civil rights. We must be able to hold them accountable,” Lasher, who is running for Congress, wrote on X, adding that he is glad Hochul is taking up his legislation.

Multiple states, including California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, have implemented similar laws allowing residents to sue federal officials.

Advertisement

Hochul also proposed other immigration guardrails, including a measure to require judicial warrants before ICE can conduct raids in sensitive locations like schools, churches and hospitals.

People march during a protest after the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Getty Images)

Earlier this year, the Trump administration reversed a Biden administration policy barring immigration arrests in these sensitive locations.

The governor also announced that New York “will not allow the use of state resources to assist in federal immigration raids on people who have not committed serious crimes.”

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin alleged in a statement to The Hill that Hochul “continues to smear law enforcement who are simply enforcing the rule of law and are putting their lives on the line to remove violent criminals from New York.”

Advertisement

ICE HEAD SAYS AGENTS FACING ‘CONSTANT IMPEDIMENTS’ AFTER MIGRANT SEEN RAMMING CARS WHILE TRYING TO FLEE

Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minnesota. (Getty Images)

McLaughlin also argued that there has been an increase in threats against federal law enforcement officers who she purports have shown “incredible restraint and professionalism in exhausting all options before any kind of non-lethal force is used.”

This debate has intensified after a recent incident in Minneapoliss, where Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement action. Protests followed in multiple cities, and Democrats and local residents have condemned the shooting and urged charges against the agent.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have defended the incident by arguing that it was a justified shooting.

Officials are also investigating a second ICE-involved shooting that happened in Minneapolis on Wednesday, as the mayor continues to demand that the agency leave the city and state.

Continue Reading

Trending