Politics
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.
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.
On Thursday night, Dan Helmer received a shipment of boxes with 1,000 yard signs that read: “Dan Helmer for Congress.”
By late Friday morning, Mr. Helmer no longer had a seat to run for.
The whiplash for the Virginia Democrats running for Congress was swift and intense after the state Supreme Court struck down the new congressional map proposed in February to flip four Republican-held seats.
With the stroke of a pen in Richmond, some campaigns effectively went poof, other candidates suddenly were in far tougher districts and one went from on the verge of dropping out to gearing up for a long-shot battle in a deep-red part of the state.
Rarely have so many fully formed campaigns gone off the rails at once. The court’s shock decision on Friday dashed Democratic hopes of providing some balance to Republican-run states that have been eliminating Democratic seats since Texas kicked off a nationwide fight last year.
Mr. Helmer, a senior member of the House of Delegates, was an architect of Virginia’s redistricting gambit that began in October. His colleagues subsequently split up Northern Virginia and created a new lobster-shaped Democratic seat ideally suited for him. Barring a miracle from the Supreme Court, Mr. Helmer said his congressional campaign is most likely over.
“There’s no seat for me,” he said. His new yard signs “are probably not as useful as they were yesterday.”
Tom Perriello, a former congressman who later served as a diplomat in Africa during Barack Obama’s presidency, began his campaign in December with the expectation that new maps were coming.
He woke up Friday morning in his home near Charlottesville in a district that Vice President Kamala Harris carried by three percentage points in 2024. Once the court ruling came a few hours later, he lived in a district Mr. Trump won by 12 points.
Mr. Perriello said he would now run against Representative John McGuire, a first-term Republican whose district covers conservative Southside Virginia. He had planned to run in a district that stitched together small Democratic-leaning cities and college towns in the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge Mountains.
The situation is even more jarring for some Democratic voters, Mr. Perriello said.
“I just walked into a food pantry in the Shenandoah Valley and the African-American woman who runs it broke down in tears and said for the first time in her life she thought she was going to have representation,” Mr. Perriello recalled Friday. “This is what the last two months have been about, about hope for the first time for people.”
Some hope Democrats will gain seats even without the new maps.
Virginia Democrats now hold six of the state’s 11 House districts. President Trump won two of the other five by five points or less, making the Republican incumbents who represent them, Representatives Jen Kiggans and Rob Wittman, endangered given the headwinds the G.O.P. faces. Their Democratic opponents, former Representative Elaine Luria and Shannon Taylor, a local prosecutor, entered the race well before the redistricting push and remain top-tier challengers.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader, said in an interview Friday that “we’re going to pick up at least two seats” in Virginia under the existing maps.
Jeff Ryer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, said he had given the state Supreme Court case a 50-50 chance of succeeding. Democrats, he argued, have been overconfident in the state ever since Abigail Spanberger won last year’s governor’s election by more than 15 points.
Now, instead of a map designed to hand 10 of 11 seats to Democrats, Mr. Ryer said he expected multiple competitive campaigns this year. He allowed that it would not be easy defending the seats Mr. Trump narrowly won.
“These districts are designed to be compact and contiguous, and when you draw them that way you’re going to get some that are not competitive and some that are hotly contested,” Mr. Ryer said.
Some Democrats vowed to soldier on under difficult conditions.
Beth Macy, the best-selling author of books like “Dopesick,” about the struggles in Appalachia, started her campaign in November before the proposed Democratic maps drew her into a district with Mr. Perriello, who was far better known and had deeper connections in their shared region of Virginia.
Ms. Macy said on Friday that she had been considering conceding the primary and endorsing Mr. Perriello, but now would remain a candidate against Representative Ben Cline, a Republican whose district includes her hometown, Roanoke.
“I feel bad, but you know, we can’t just roll over,” Ms. Macy said. “Democrats have got to stop showing up to a knife fight with a spork.”
Ms. Macy, who is now running in a deep-red district Mr. Trump carried by 25 points, is not short on optimism. She predicted the backlash to Republican policies in Washington could lead to Virginia Democrats sweeping out G.O.P. incumbents across the state and perhaps reach the same end Democrats had hoped for with their maps.
“We have never been to where we are in this country,” she said. “It’s a national emergency.”
Politics
Hegseth says Pentagon will review Mark Kelly’s public statements about classified briefing amid ongoing feud
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Sunday suggested Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., may have violated his oath with comments he made to a news outlet following a classified briefing.
Kelly told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation that it is “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines” when asked if the Pentagon has updated lawmakers on the Iran war’s impact on U.S. weapons stockpiles.
The senator told Brennan the Tomahawks, Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rounds and Patriot rounds used to defend the U.S. have been hit hard, adding that it will take years to replenish those stockpiles, which could affect a hypothetical U.S. conflict with China.
In response, Hegseth questioned whether Kelly, a former Navy pilot, may have violated his oath and said the Pentagon’s legal counsel will review his comments.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS PENTAGON FROM DEMOTING MARK KELLY OVER CONTROVERSIAL MILITARY VIDEO
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth suggested Sen. Mark Kelly may have violated his oath with comments he made following a classified briefing. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“‘Captain’ Mark Kelly strikes again,” Hegseth wrote on X.
“Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received,” he continued. “Did he violate his oath… again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
The senator clapped back, saying Hegseth had revealed similar information at a recent hearing and that it was not classified.
“We had this conversation in a public hearing a week ago and you said it would take ‘years’ to replenish some of these stockpiles,” Kelly responded on X. “That’s not classified, it’s a quote from you. This war is coming at a serious cost and you and the president still haven’t explained to the American people what the goal is.”
This comes amid a months-long dispute between Hegseth and Kelly over the senator’s participation in a video with some of his Democratic colleagues in Congress urging U.S. military members to ignore “illegal” orders.
The DOJ has opened an investigation into the video posted online featuring six Democratic lawmakers calling on troops and members of the intelligence community to defy illegal orders from the federal government. The lawmakers all served in the military or at intelligence agencies.
In addition to Kelly, the other lawmakers in the video were Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Jason Crow of Colorado.
GRAND JURY REJECTS DOJ EFFORT TO INDICT DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WHO URGED MILITARY TO DEFY ILLEGAL ORDERS
Pentagon chief Hegseth said the Pentagon’s legal counsel will review Sen. Mark Kelly’s latest comments. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
Grand jurors declined to sign off on charges against the lawmakers in February.
In November, the Pentagon launched an investigation into Kelly, pointing to a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment.
Hegseth has censured Kelly and has attempted to retroactively demote him from his retired rank of captain over his participation in the video, which affirms that refusing unlawful orders is a standard part of military protocol.
But a federal court ruling blocked the Pentagon from demoting the lawmaker over the video. The court also found the Pentagon likely violated Kelly’s First Amendment rights, and those of “millions of military retirees,” when it formally censured him on Jan. 5.
Hegseth subsequently appealed that ruling.
Sen. Mark Kelly has repeatedly said he would not back down amid the Pentagon’s attempts to punish him over the video. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments and appeared largely skeptical of Hegseth’s attempt to punish Kelly for the video.
“I will not back down from this fight,” Kelly said after the hearing.
President Donald Trump had accused the lawmakers of being “traitors” who engaged in “sedition at the highest level” and “should be in jail” after the video was posted last fall. He even suggested they should be executed over the video, although he later attempted to walk that comment back.
Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA and Pentagon, was targeted with a bomb threat just days after the clip and Trump’s subsequent statements suggesting the Democrats be executed.
Voters in California may get a chance to remake the state’s open primary system in two years.
Political consultant Steve Maviglio filed an application Friday with state officials that seeks to alter California’s voting system by reverting to a traditional primary. Under the proposal, the top candidates from each party would advance to the general election in November.
The current system allows the top two candidates, regardless of party, to move on to the runoff. That has led to instances in which two Democrats or two Republicans have faced off in the general election.
The state’s gubernatorial election, for example, has prompted concern that two Republicans could shut out the Democratic candidates. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton have polled high in various surveys and are facing a large field of Democrats.
Democratic voters vastly outnumber Republicans in California, yet some political consultants said they feared there were so many Democrats running that voters wouldn’t coalesce around one candidate and the field would be split. Those fears have eased somewhat in recent months as some Democratic candidates advance from the pack.
The state’s top-two primary system has been in place since California voters passed Proposition 14 in 2010. The state’s major political parties opposed the initiative, while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supported it.
The goal was to help end partisan gridlock in Sacramento and force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters, rather than just those in their own party.
Proposition 14, as well as the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process, has led to some dramatic races, including the 2012 face-off between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman for a congressional seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Amid aspersions and attack ads, the pair nearly came to blows at a community debate.
Maviglio described the ballot measure as a simple repeal of Proposition 14, and said he was inspired by the governor’s race.
“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it,” Maviglio said.
The New York Times first reported on the ballot measure proposal.
A news release from Maviglio states that the proposed repeal of Prop. 14 “is fueled by concerns that California’s primaries are disenfranchising a majority of California voters by limiting choice to candidates from one party.”
A website for the effort includes criticisms of the current primary system by Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and Ron Nehring, former chairman of the California Republican Party.
Maviglio’s ballot initiative proposes to appear on the 2028 ballot and take effect in 2030.
Talk of changing Proposition 14 has been swirling in Sacramento for months.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters at an unrelated news conference last week that she had voted years ago against Proposition 14. She questioned whether it had actually succeeded in creating more diversity.
“I did not like the open primary,” Weber said. “I didn’t think it would solve any problems. They had a list of problems it would solve, and none of those have been solved.”
-
Delaware3 minutes agoPedestrian dies after being struck by vehicle in Delaware County
-
Florida9 minutes agoSouth Florida and Miami news today
-
Georgia16 minutes agoTake a look: Gulfstream welcomes students to its Savannah headquarters
-
Hawaii21 minutes agoCounty approval sought for festival that has irritated neighbors – West Hawaii Today
-
Idaho27 minutes agoThis is How to Identify an Idaho Christian Nationalist
-
Illinois33 minutes agoThe Weekly: Illinois detention centers, Canvas breach and AI policies
-
Indiana39 minutes agoSuspect in custody after Muncie triple shooting leaves 1 woman dead, 2 men injured
-
Iowa46 minutes agoThe ‘What Ifs’ of 2025-26 for Iowa State athletics | Hines