Politics

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

Published

2 years ago

June 21, 2024

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

WASHINGTON —

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.

Politics

RFK Jr. responds to snake-handling critics with new video showing him wrangling a venomous rattlesnake

Published

11 hours ago

May 28, 2026

Press Room

RFK Jr. responds to snake-handling critics with new video showing him wrangling a venomous rattlesnake

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared another snake-handling video Wednesday after social media users raised concerns over his earlier encounter with a pair of black racer snakes.

Kennedy Jr. posted an Instagram video captioned, “In response to the many comments about venomous snakes, this video shows how Cheryl and I handled a recent rattlesnake rescue.”

The clip begins with Kennedy Jr. sitting in his home office before someone alerts him to a snake in the driveway.

“Hold on, guys. I’ll be back in a flash,” he says before grabbing a bucket and a small net and heading outside.

RFK JR BAREHANDS A PAIR OF SNAKES ON DR. OZ’S PATIO IN WILD VIDEO

RFK Jr. wrangles a Western Diamondback rattlesnake during a rescue video shared to Instagram Wednesday. (Instagram/RFKJr.)

The HHS secretary then carefully scoops up the rattlesnake as onlookers react in amazement.

After placing the snake in a bucket, Kennedy Jr. later pins it behind the head and lifts it toward the camera while explaining how to identify the reptile.

“His fangs are in there. I don’t want to touch them,” he said. “This is a beautiful snake. This is a Western Diamondback. You can tell by these rings at the end of his tail.”

Kennedy Jr. then asked his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, to bring him a pillowcase before transporting and releasing the snake back into the wild.

ACTRESS CHERYL HINES CLASHES WITH ‘THE VIEW’ OVER HER HUSBAND RFK JR’S RECORD SERVING AMERICANS

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proudly displays a pair of black North American racer snakes he caught on Dr. Oz’s patio. (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)

The Instagram post appeared to respond directly to criticism and concern sparked by another snake video Kennedy Jr. shared Tuesday on X.

In that clip, Kennedy Jr. grabbed two black North American racer snakes with his bare hands while visiting Dr. Mehmet Oz’s patio as Hines watched in apparent horror.

“Honey, honey … why?” Hines yelled as Kennedy Jr. cornered the snakes.

Kennedy Jr. then lunged at the reptiles and eventually lifted both by their tails as they repeatedly bit his hands.

CHERYL HINES SHARES HARROWING EVACUATION FROM WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER AS GUNSHOTS RANG OUT

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cheryl Hines attend the 2026 White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. (Taylor Hill/WireImage)

“Black snakes, they’re biting me,” Kennedy Jr. said with a smile.

The snakes continued striking at his hands as Hines pleaded, “Bobby, please! Bobby, Bobby, please,” before later telling him, “You are nuts.”

Kennedy Jr. later posted the video to X with the caption, “Cheryl cheerleads the removal of a pair of Black Racers from Dr Oz’s patio.”

According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, black racer snakes are nonvenomous and generally harmless to humans, though they will “readily bite to defend themselves.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The earlier video showed Kennedy Jr. handling nonvenomous snakes, while Wednesday’s Instagram clip focused on a venomous Western Diamondback rattlesnake, prompting some social media users to question whether the HHS secretary was taking unnecessary risks.

Fox News Digital’s Robert McGreevy contributed to this report.

Brittany Miller is a Breaking News Writer for Fox News Digital. Tips can be sent to brittany.miller@fox.com and @BrittMillerFox on X.

Politics

Newsom vows to levy 100% tax on California recipients of Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘slush fund’

Published

11 hours ago

May 28, 2026

Press Room

Newsom vows to levy 100% tax on California recipients of Trump’s .8-billion ‘slush fund’

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to tax 100% of the money Californians receive from President Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Trump’s Justice Department had announced last week that it would establish a $1.776-billion fund to compensate allies of the president who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds,” the governor told reporters Thursday.

“That’s an action the state of California can take …[and] it’s an action we look forward to taking.”

Just how Newsom would do so remains unclear. He indicated that he would need action from the Democratic-led California Legislature to impose the new tax. If adopted, the measure would likely face legal challenge.

The fund has prompted outrage from Democrats and some Republicans — including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said in a statement that the “slush fund,” which would “pay people who assault cops,” was “utterly stupid.”

Newsom’s remarks about Trump’s settlement fund came on Thursday as he signed a bill designed to prevent election interference ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

The bill, Senate Bill 73, restricts law enforcement agencies and officers — including those from federal agencies — from interfering with state and local election officials, such as confiscating ballots, voter rolls or voting machines without a warrant.

The governor said the bill is meant to address “legitimate anxiety” over threats to election integrity after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s decision to seize ballots from the county’s voter registrar as part of a fraud probe. Bianco, a long-time Trump supporter, is one of the top Republicans running to succeed Newsom after the end of his second and final term as governor.

Newsom also pointed to ICE and Border Patrol’s decision last November to stage an event near Dodger Stadium, calling it a “show of force designed to intimidate free expression and free speech.”

“That’s why we have to step up and we have to draw the line,” Newsom said. “We have to clarify the rules of engagement… there are fines associated with this, criminal fines and jail time of three years, so that’s a warning [to] the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

Newsom said he expects Trump to interfere with the upcoming election — noting that the president has falsely claimed that he “won” California in the last election.

“Every single thing that Donald Trump is saying only suggests that he will do more, not less, to intimidate and to impact the outcome of this election,” Newsom said. “I absolutely expect the worst again, because we’ve been on the receiving end of it.”

Politics

See Where the Gerrymandering Wars Have Redrawn U.S. Congressional Maps

Published

22 hours ago

May 27, 2026

Press Room

See Where the Gerrymandering Wars Have Redrawn U.S. Congressional Maps

Tap on a state to jump to its maps.

The nationwide gerrymandering battle has escalated in recent weeks, after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in April weakened the Voting Rights Act and set off a scramble to redraw maps in some Southern states that have yet to hold primaries.

Eight states have redrawn their congressional districts since President Trump pressured Texas lawmakers last summer to pass a new map favoring Republicans. Republican lawmakers in two states are pushing to use a new map ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Here is a look at how district lines have changed in each of the states that have redrawn maps, and how the new maps would have fared in the 2024 presidential election.