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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Park Police union says officers ‘did everything they could’ during DC anti-Israel riot

Published

on

Park Police union says officers ‘did everything they could’ during DC anti-Israel riot

Following the protests at Union Station by anti-Israel agitators defacing federal property in protest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, a Park Police union is pushing back against criticism that only a few arrests were made.

Thousands of Hamas-sympathizing agitators descended on Washington, D.C., Tuesday, at one point defacing federal monuments with phrases in support of the terrorist group responsible for the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, saying, “Hamas is coming.” 

Twenty-three people were arrested at the protests, but some have suggested that number should have been higher. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., posted on X, “How many more times are they going to allow leftist degenerates who support terrorism and hate America to vandalize property and attack police? There should have been hundreds of arrests today in D.C. not just 23.”

HOUSE REPUBLICANS REPLACE AMERICAN FLAGS AT UNION STATION AFTER ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS

Advertisement

The Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station during an anti-Israel protest on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Seth Herald)

But the U.S. Park Police Labor Committee is pushing back.

“Our officers on the ground did everything they could to protect life and property. In fact, despite having only 29 officers available to mitigate damage — 29! — with no additional help from the Department of the Interior, we processed several arrests for charges ranging from assault on a police officer to destruction of government property,” Kenneth Spencer, chairman of the United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police, said in a statement. 

“That’s why it’s so disheartening to hear some members of Congress and members of the media, many of whom describe themselves as ‘champions’ of law enforcement, suggesting that officers gave protesters a ‘pass’ or that insufficient arrests were made. 

“Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who truly cares to understand the problem would see that our officer staffing crisis is at the root of our agency’s mission readiness. A small unit of 29 officers arrested 10 individuals while being assaulted by a mob of thousands. We simply did not have the staffing or resources to accomplish a mass arrest operation.”

Advertisement

SEE IT: THE MOST DRAMATIC PHOTOS FROM WEDNESDAY’S PRO-HAMAS WASHINGTON, D.C. PROTESTS

A pro-Palestinian demonstrator sprays graffiti on Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station

An anti-Israel demonstrator sprays graffiti on the Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain at Union Station on the day of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Nathan Howard)

At least one demonstrator, whose face was covered, was spotted by Fox News carrying what appeared to be the flag of the terrorist group Hamas while others were heard shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

KAMALA HARRIS REACTS TO ANTI-ISRAEL RIOTS AT DC’S UNION STATION

Protesters-gather-for-Israeli-PM-Netanyahu's-address-to-Congress-in-Washington

Anti-Israel demonstrators burn an effigy depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside Union Station on the day of Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington July 24, 2024.  (Reuters/Nathan Howard)

The White House condemned the protests Wednesday evening, calling the chaos “disgraceful.” 

Advertisement

“Identifying with evil terrorist organizations like Hamas, burning the American flag or forcibly removing the American flag and replacing it with another is disgraceful,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a comment to Fox News Digital Wednesday evening. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Ali: Kamala Harris has a campaign soundtrack: Beyoncé's 'Freedom'

Published

on

Ali: Kamala Harris has a campaign soundtrack: Beyoncé's 'Freedom'

Vice President Kamala Harris’ bid for the presidency has a soundtrack: Beyoncé’s “Freedom.”

The leading Democratic presidential candidate took the stage in her first visit to her Wilmington, Del. campaign headquarters and again during her first campaign rally in Wisconsin as the song played.

Now the cathartic anthem graces Harris’ first campaign ad, in which she says: “There are some people who think that we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us? We choose something different: We choose freedom.”

Pit that against the musical number her competitor chose for his grand entrance on Night 3 of the Republican National Conference. Donald Trump walked out to James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World,” a tone-deaf choice for a former president found liable for sexual abuse, who’s bragged about sexually assaulting women, a married man who paid hush money to a porn star and a former president who rolled back women’s reproductive rights 50 years with the repeal of Roe vs. Wade.

Maybe the Godfather of Soul would have endorsed Trump’s usage of his song, but Brown would be breaking with decades’ worth of musicians who’ve decried GOP candidates playing their tracks at rallies and booster events. Adele, Rihanna, R.E.M., the Rolling Stones, Prince, Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses and Queen are among the many artists who’ve spoken out against Trump using their tunes for campaign purposes.

Advertisement

Heart bristled when the McCain-Palin campaign used “Barracuda.” Tom Petty insisted George W. Bush back away from “I Won’t Back Down.” Bruce Springsteen decried Ronald Reagan’s appropriation of “Born in the U.S.A.”

Beyoncé, however, gave Harris her blessing to use “Freedom,” a single from her 2016 blockbuster album “Lemonade.” The song, which features guest rapper Kendrick Lamar, is an explosive expression of empowerment. At the time of its release, it spoke to public outcry around police killings of unarmed Black men and women — Eric Garner, Tamar Rice, Freddie Gray — and protests that were largely fueled by the ire of younger generations.

Whether Beyoncé was singing about the tyranny of a cheating spouse or racial injustice (or both), the song became an anthem for a new, potentially potent block of the American electorate.

For the first time, Gen Z and millennials could now account for as many votes as baby boomers and their elders, groups that have made up a majority of the electorate for decades.

Folks under 40 have grown up with Beyoncé and her ubiquitous work. Think of Beyoncé like the Who for boomers — their work is everywhere (Republican Sen. Rand Paul played the band’s anti-war hit “Baba O’Riley” when he campaigned in 2015) — or Nirvana for Gen X, except no one cares what we think. Whatever, nevermind.

Advertisement

The Harris campaign’s smart choice of music coincides with a willingness to lean into a meme culture that shot up organically around the 59-year-old VP since President Biden announced Sunday that he was dropping out of the race.

Pop star Charli XCX showed her support for Harris when she tweeted “Kamala IS brat.” The British singer is referring to the TikTok and Twitter edits of Harris’ image superimposed to songs from Charli XCX’s hit album “Brat.” The avalanche of memes come from a video clip in which Harris talks about her mother’s response to the hubris of youth: “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.”

Right-wing social media used the quote to deride Harris as inarticulate and a “word salad” master, but liberal swaths of Gen Z have since reworked the clip into emojis and memes that celebrate Harris’ nonconformist approach. She’s become a viral sensation, in a good way, unlike J.D. Vance’s damning “single cat lady” memes and a cringey internet joke about encounters with couches.

It’s rare that relevant talent will shill for a Republican candidate. Case in point: Trump’s pop culture ambassadors at this year’s RNC were Kid Rock, Kanye’s ex Amber Rose and former WWE wrestler Hulk Hogan, whose big moment was ripping his shirt off and screaming “Let Trump mania run wild!”

Harris chose to let freedom ring, and she has Queen Bey behind her.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Texas sues Biden administration over program giving birth control to teens without parents' knowledge

Published

on

Texas sues Biden administration over program giving birth control to teens without parents' knowledge

Texas officials are challenging a recent order from President Biden’s administration that would allow schools to distribute birth control to teenagers without parental consent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Thursday that his office is suing the Biden administration over their 2021 change to Title X guidelines banning parental consent requirements for birth control services.

“By attempting to force Texas healthcare providers to offer contraceptives to children without parental consent, the Biden Administration continues to prove they will do anything to implement their extremist agenda — even undermine the Constitution and violate the law,” Paxton said in a statement.

TRUMP SAYS HE ‘WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL’ OR OTHER CONTRACEPTIVES

A woman takes the next pill from a monthly pack of contraceptive pills.  (Annette Riedl/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Texas legal battle began in Dec. 2021 when US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Title X — the federal program that provides free, confidential contraception to anyone regardless of age, income or immigration status —  violates parental rights and violates state and federal laws.

The case was argued by former solicitor general of Texas Jonathan Mitchell, representing father Alex Deanda, who said he was “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.”

SCHUMER PLANS VOTE ON ‘CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION’ IN BID TO PROTECT SENATE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY

Matthew Kacsmaryk

Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, previously ruled that parents must be informed when birth control is provided to their children under 18 years old. (Senate Judiciary Committee via AP)

In response, the federal government updated guidelines to state that Title X projects “may not require consent of parents or guardians for the provision of services to minors, nor can any Title X project staff notify a parent or guardian before or after a minor has requested and/or received Title X family planning services.”

Paxton is now seeking a permanent injunction on this rule, which he claims defies the findings of the federal court.

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife Angela are pictured outside the Supreme Court on Nov. 1, 2021.

Paxton and his wife Angela are pictured outside the Supreme Court. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Paxton filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Amarillo. It will likely be heard by Kacsmaryk, the same judge who previously ruled parents must be informed of birth control provided to their children.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending