Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Los Angeles couple denied visa in part over husband's tattoos

Published

on

Supreme Court rules against Los Angeles couple denied visa in part over husband's tattoos

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 against a Los Angeles woman who argued her constitutional rights were violated when the federal government denied a visa to her Salvadoran husband, in part because they viewed his tattoos as gang-related.

The broad ruling is a major setback for Americans with foreign spouses because it explicitly rejects the idea that a citizen has a constitutional right to attempt to bring their noncitizen spouse into the country.

The majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said that while the plaintiff, L.A. civil rights attorney Sandra Muñoz, does have a fundamental right to marriage, she failed to establish that right extends to living with her husband in the U.S.

Advertisement

“In fact, Congress’s longstanding regulation of spousal immigration — including through bars on admissibility — cuts the other way,” Barrett said, concluding that “a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.”

Luis Asencio Cordero, who lived in the U.S. until 2015, has been separated from Muñoz since his visa was denied during a consular interview in El Salvador.

The couple sought to file a new visa application with evidence refuting his alleged membership in the MS-13 gang, and wanting assurance that the federal government would review it.

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.

Muñoz argued the government violated her rights to marriage and due process by failing to provide a timely explanation for her husband’s visa denial. After the couple sued, they learned through their lawsuit that the government believed he was an MS-13 gang member, based on his tattoos, an interview and a background check including “confidential law enforcement information.” Asencio Cordero had no criminal history in the U.S. or in El Salvador.

Advertisement

Asencio Cordero’s tattoos depict the comedy and tragedy theater masks, La Virgen de Guadalupe and a tribal design with a paw print. He denies they are affiliated with a gang, and a court-approved gang expert agreed.

A long-established judicial policy — the doctrine of consular nonreviewability — prevents court reviews of visa determinations except in limited cases.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the couple in 2022. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that because Muñoz and Asencio Cordero could choose to live outside the U.S., her right to marriage has not been violated.

Immigration officers have broad discretion about whom to admit into the country, administration lawyers said. They 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.

But the dispute over tattoos and what role they played in Munoz’s denial was not at issue. Instead, the majority agreed with the State Department’s concern that Muñoz’s claims could have “unsettling collateral consequences.” They questioned whether a wife could then challenge her husband’s assignment to a remote prison or overseas military deployment, or whether a citizen could challenge their immigrant spouse’s deportation proceedings.

Advertisement

Muñoz’s position would “usher in a new strain of constitutional law,” Barrett wrote, because the Constitution doesn’t prevent the government from taking actions that indirectly burden a citizen’s legal rights.

Barrett wrote that while Congress can use its authority over immigration to prioritize family unity, that is “a matter of legislative grace.” She said the 9th Circuit Court based in San Francisco stood alone in having embraced that as an “asserted right.”

“Muñoz has suffered harm from the denial of Asencio-Cordero’s visa application, but that harm does not give her a constitutional right to participate in his consular process,” Barrett said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Writing for the dissent, Sotomayor said the majority’s fear that the case could result in a slippery slope of constitutional challenges is groundless.

Sotomayor said she agreed with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who wrote in an opinion concurring with the majority that because the factual basis for the government’s denial of Asencio Cordero’s visa has been revealed, Muñoz has already received the process she was due.

Advertisement

“There is no question that excluding a citizen’s spouse burdens her right to marriage, and that burden requires the Government to provide at least a factual basis for its decision,” Sotomayor wrote.

That simple resolution should have ended the case, Sotomayor said, but instead “the majority swings for the fences,” limits the court’s longstanding precedent about the fundamental right to marriage, “and gravely undervalues the right to marriage in the immigration context.”

Just because a married couple could move their home elsewhere does not suddenly remove the burden on their constitutional rights for not being able to live together in the U.S., Sotomayor wrote. She cited Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

The court “did not tell Richard and Mildred Loving to stay in the District of Columbia,” she said. “It upheld their ability to exercise their right to marriage wherever they sought to make their home.”

Sotomayor continued: “The majority’s holding will also extend to those couples who… depend on American law for their marriages’ validity. Same-sex couples may be forced to relocate to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage, or even those that criminalize homosexuality.”

Advertisement

Immigrant advocates slammed the decision, calling it another form of family separation.

The National Immigrant Justice Center said the decision will make litigation by families in similar situations all but impossible moving forward. So, while Muñoz and Asencio Cordero eventually got a basic explanation for his visa denial, others might never access such information.

The couple’s attorney Eric Lee said he worries the decision opens the door to justifying the dismantling of other rights that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, such as gay marriage.

“It’s hard to overstate how dangerous this decision is not only for our clients and for similarly situated mixed immigration families,” Lee said. “It sets the stage for taking the country back to a very dark period in its history.”

Separately this week, President Biden announced an executive order to protect immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens who have lived consecutively in the country for at least a decade. At the White House on Tuesday, Biden said it’s the right thing to do.

Advertisement

“There’s already a system in place for people we’re talking about today,” Biden said. “But the process is cumbersome, risky, and it separates families. From the current process, undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens must go back to their home country… to obtain long-term legal status. They have to leave their families in America, with no assurance they’ll be allowed back in the United States.”

Had he never left the country, Asencio Cordero could have qualified for protections. For Lee, the announcement was bittersweet. He implored Biden to extend similar protections to families who are already separated because of such visa denials.

“We hope the new relief applies to as many families as possible,” Lee said, “but it is hard not to ask: If these are the new criteria, then why did the administration fight Sandra and Luis’ case as hard as they did for so many years?”

Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Becerra sees momentum, money and movement in the polls in governor’s race

Published

on

Becerra sees momentum, money and movement in the polls in governor’s race

Xavier Becerra, a former Cabinet secretary in President Biden’s administration, appears to be surging in the wildly unsettled California governor’s race.

Until recently, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary had been mired in the single digits in polling to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and lead the nation’s most populous state.

But after former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) dropped out of the race earlier this month amid accusations of sexual assault and other misconduct, Becerra has seen a boost in polls, fundraising and endorsements.

On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas endorsed Becerra alongside 14 Democratic members of the legislative body.

Advertisement

Arguing that Californians are under constant threat from President Trump’s policies, Rivas cited Becerra’s decades-long record in public office, including defending Obamacare and young immigrants, or “Dreamers,” to argue that Becerra is best positioned to lead the state.

“There’s no time to learn on the job — we need a governor who’s ready to fight back on day one,” Rivas said in a statement, noting that Becerra sued the Trump administration 122 times while he was California’s attorney general. “We have a strong Democratic field for governor. But right now, we need someone ready on day one. Xavier Becerra is that leader.”

Becerra said he was honored to receive the legislators’ backing.

“I look forward to working with the Speaker and legislators on Day One to tackle the problems Californians care about most — from the skyrocketing cost of groceries and housing to our unyielding fight against the Trump Administration’s disastrous policies,” he said in a prepared statement. “Californians need an experienced and trusted leader who doesn’t need on-the-job training.”

The endorsements come at a critical moment in the governor’s race — just two weeks before ballots begin arriving in Californians’ mailboxes. In addition to Swalwell dropping out, former state Controller Betty Yee ended her bid on Monday because of a lack of resources. On Tuesday, Yee endorsed hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer.

Advertisement

She said in a video that she was backing Steyer because of his “standing up our democracy and getting young people involved, certainly with respect to our climate and the climate crisis we’re facing.”

Becerra and Steyer are now the Democratic front-runners in the race.

Despite Becerra’s long tenure in state and federal office, the unflashy politician is not well-known among California voters. He was among the underdogs in the 2026 gubernatorial race. Swalwell, by contrast, was among the leading Democratic candidates.

Amy Thoma, a former Republican strategist who is no longer affiliated with a political party, noted that Becerra’s surge comes at a critical moment in the election, shortly before ballots land in Californians’ mailboxes.

“Voters are starting to tune into the race. Yes, they want someone who will stand up to Trump, but it also seems they want someone with experience who can address the very real issues facing the state,” Thoma said.

Advertisement

She added that Becerra’s life story is “incredibly compelling.”

“The word authentic is overused, but every time he talks about his love for this state, for his family and wanting to make California work for everyone, it comes across incredibly sincere,” Thoma said. “Voters can see through candidates who fake it.”

Becerra was respected by colleagues across the aisle, including former GOP legislative leader and state Republican party chairman Jim Brulte. Both men were elected to the state Assembly in 1990 and though their politics often sharply differed. However, they had a warm relationship.

“He was progressive and I am a conservative,” Brulte said. “We never agreed much on policy, but he is a good man with a great heart.”

The 2026 governor’s race has been unlike any in recent memory, with no clear front-runner in a crowded field of candidates and voters just beginning to pay attention to the contest shortly before the June 2 primary.

Advertisement

There were two prominent Republicans and eight prominent Democrats in the race, leading to fears among Democratic leaders in the state that their party’s candidates could be shut out in the general election because of California’s unique primary system. The two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary will move on to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Democratic leaders remain concerned that despite California’s sapphire-blue tilt, the number of their party’s candidates in the race could lead to a splintering of Democratic voters that results in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot.

Six prominent Democrats remain in the race, after Swalwell and Yee dropped out.

The race — lacking a global superstar such as Arnold Schwarzenegger or the scion of a storied political family and former governor like Jerry Brown — is ephemeral. Anything can happen before the June 2 primary.

But Becerra is having a moment. In addition to the new endorsements, he has seen notable movement in polls, most recently in a survey released Monday by the state Democratic Party. Becerra jumped nine points from the party’s last poll, tying Steyer at 13%.

Advertisement

While Becerra will never be able to match Steyer’s deep pockets, he raised more than $1 million on ActBlue, the top Democratic fundraising platform, in the week ending Saturday, making him the biggest fundraiser on the site in the nation.

“Ninety-seven percent were first-time donors,” Becerra’s campaign said in a statement. “This is not a donor base being recycled. It is a movement being born.”

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report from Sacramento.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

Published

on

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

American cities — densely populated and overwhelmingly Democratic — are typically prime targets for aggressive gerrymanders. This past year has been no different, as urban areas became casualties of newly partisan maps, drawn by both Republicans and Democrats in a rare bout of middecade redistricting.

With nearly 80 percent of the United States population living in urban areas, according to the census, mapmakers using modern data technology can surgically split cities block by block to eke out a partisan advantage. They “pack” like-minded voters into a single district, or “crack” them, linking slivers of concrete-covered downtowns with farmland hundreds of miles away.

Advertisement

While the intentions are often political, these julienned districts often leave communities with little in common, and no cohesive representation in Congress. Roughly 37 percent of congressional districts are either urban or an urban-suburban mix, while 63 percent remain rural or rural-suburban, according to the District Density Scale.

So far this year, state lawmakers have carved up major Democratic cities in the nationwide redistricting arms race, drawing new maps in five states. Virginia could be next, if voters approve a referendum Tuesday to redraw boundaries and potentially add four Democratic seats.

Kansas City, Mo.

Advertisement

Take the Kansas City, Mo., area as a clear example. Late last year, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law a new map that would pave the way for eliminating a Democratic seat and add a Republican one, potentially ousting a longtime representative, Emanuel Cleaver, who was also the first Black mayor of Kansas City.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The proposed map effectively slices apart — or “cracks” — the old Fifth District, which previously held a majority of Democratic-dominated Kansas City and its metropolitan area, into three parts.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

District Margin
5th Dem. +23.2 D +23.2
6th Rep. +38.9 R +38.9
4th Rep. +42.3 R +42.3

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
5th Rep. +18.2 R +18.2
4th Rep. +21.2 R +21.2
6th Rep. +26.7 R +26.7

As a result, Democratic voters from Kansas City are spread out across three new districts where they are likely to be outnumbered by Republican voters. The Kansas City area went from having one Democratic district and two Republican districts to having three Republican districts.

Northern Virginia

Advertisement

While Missouri illustrates how a single-district city can be cracked apart to dilute the votes of a densely packed partisan area, Virginia is taking a different approach. Its proposed map spreads out Democrats from the crammed northern Virginia suburbs into multiple districts spreading more than a hundred miles into deeply red areas for the opposite outcome: to tilt more districts blue.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

While there is no central city in northern Virginia — Fairfax County, the state’s largest municipality, boasts nearly 1.2 million people but sprawls across nearly 400 square miles — the northern reaches of the state have a population in the millions and are mostly Democratic.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +49.3 D +49.3
11th Dem. +34.0 D +34.0
10th Dem. +8.3 D +8.3
7th Dem. +2.9 D +2.9
6th Rep. +23.8 R +23.8

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +17.5 D +17.5
11th Dem. +13.4 D +13.4
10th Dem. +12.4 D +12.4
7th Dem. +8.1 D +8.1
1st Dem. +7.5 D +7.5

The result is an exceptionally aggressive “cracking” of Democratic voters in the northern part of the state across five congressional districts, which would lead to the elimination of three Republican-held seats (the proposed Virginia map eliminates all but one Republican-controlled district).

Houston

Advertisement

In larger cities like Houston, mapmakers have the opportunity to get creative in their carving. At President Trump’s behest, Texas was the first state to redistrict last year. Let’s look at Houston’s old Ninth District.

Advertisement

2024 districts

The old Ninth District was mostly swallowed by the newly crafted 18th District, and remaining voters were funneled into three Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic one.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
9th Dem. +44.0 D +44.0
18th Dem. +39.7 D +39.7
7th Dem. +20.7 D +20.7
29th Dem. +20.3 D +20.3
38th Rep. +20.7 R +20.7

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
18th Dem. +54.9 D +54.9
29th Dem. +30.4 D +30.4
7th Dem. +23.4 D +23.4
9th Rep. +19.9 R +19.9
38th Rep. +21.0 R +21.0

Advertisement

But Houston’s maps also illustrate a second gerrymandering strategy: “packing.” The new 18th District was drawn to be exceptionally Democratic, “packing” a high concentration of Democrats into a single district, thereby ensuring that they would be outnumbered in neighboring districts.

Dallas

As another densely populated city, and one with a large population of people of color, Republicans in Texas sliced some congressional districts in the state, while packing Democrats into others.

Advertisement

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The newly drawn 32nd District is a textbook example of “cracking,” splitting apart the eastern and northern suburbs of Dallas and extending the district more than a hundred miles east, into more rural and deeply Republican areas of East Texas. As a result, the new 32nd District is solidly red compared with its previous blue tint.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
33rd Dem. +33.7 D +33.7
32nd Dem. +23.6 D +23.6
24th Rep. +15.5 R +15.5
5th Rep. +27.0 R +27.0
6th Rep. +28.4 R +28.4

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
30th Dem. +47.0 D +47.0
33rd Dem. +32.6 D +32.6
24th Rep. +16.1 R +16.1
32nd Rep. +17.6 R +17.6
5th Rep. +21.4 R +21.4

The cracking and packing in Dallas achieved another outcome: drawing current incumbents out of their districts, forcing some into primaries against one another while prompting others to leave the House entirely. In Dallas, Representative Jasmine Crockett chose to run for Senate after being drawn out of the 30th District (She lost in March to James Talarico).

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

Published

on

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds introduced legislation that would require biometric tracking of every entry and exit from the United States, as part of a Republican push to crack down on visa overstays and fraudulent immigration documents.

With illegal crossings down sharply under President Donald Trump’s second term, Republicans are shifting toward the next phase of immigration enforcement — tracking visa overstays and closing documentation loopholes. Donalds’ bill aims to force full nationwide use and federal oversight of the biometric entry-exit system.

Donalds told Fox News Digital exclusively he introduced the legislation on Monday.

“Thanks to President Trump’s decisive actions, our borders are more secure than they have been in decades. We are now moving to finish the job by introducing the Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act, which provides the oversight needed to ensure every entry and exit is fully verified,” Donalds told Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

FLORIDA SHERIFF SAYS ICE PARTNERSHIP ONLY THE BEGINNING IN ILLEGAL MIGRANT CRACKDOWN

Congressman Byron Donalds is introducing Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act to tighten immigration enforcement nationwide. (Paul Ratje / AFP via Getty Images)

The bill would close gaps to ensure full coverage at every port, provide system flow updates, and identify what is “slowing” it down by requiring DHS to report to congress. The biometric data system collects fingerprints, facial images, and iris scans.

Immigration reform is a central focus of the second Trump administration, with officials shifting attention toward internal tracking and enforcement gaps, not just border crossings.

The biometric entry-exit system was first introduced a decade ago, following a 2004 recommendation from the 9/11 Commission to strengthen national security through a comprehensive tracking method.

Advertisement

HOUSE GOP BILL COULD TRIGGER SELF-DEPORTATION FOR SOMALI REFUGEES AMID MINNESOTA FRAUD PROBE

Previous administrations failed to fully implement the system across all ports of entry, leaving it incomplete. A final rule issued in December 2025 now mandates a nationwide rollout.

Donalds’ legislation aims to ensure it is fully executed this time by holding DHS accountable. 

“The border has been secured, but the work is far from over,” said Donalds in a press release. “Visa overstays and fraudulent documentation remain a large piece of the overall illegal immigration puzzle that needs to be addressed.”

Byron Donalds, a Florida lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, unveiled legislation cracking down on immigration overstays.  (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Data from the Border Patrol cited by Pew Research found there were 237,538 migrant encounters at the Mexican border in 2025. It is the lowest number since Richard Nixon was president in 1970 when 201,780 were encountered.

I REPRESENT A BORDER DISTRICT THAT WAS SWAMPED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHAT I’M SEEING NOW MIGHT SURPRISE YOU

Migrants wait in line to turn themselves in for processing to US Customs and Border Protection border patrol agents near the Paso del Norte Port of Entry after crossing the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on May 9, 2023.  (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP)

Donalds, candidate for Florida governor to succeed term-limited Gov. Ron DeSantis, said he anticipates “swift passage” of the bill.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“Republicans are steadfast in our commitment to the mandate entrusted to us by the American people,” he told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending