High Court Sides With Government On Spousal Visa Denial : It's All Politics The justices divided 5-to-4, concluding that a consular officer's citation of unspecified "terrorist activities" was enough to justify barring a spouse without further explanation.

High Court Sides With Government On Spousal Visa Denial

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/414689855/414689856" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

An American citizen whose spouse is denied a visa for national security reasons is not entitled to any further explanation or legal recourse. That's the ruling today from the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices were divided five to four in the ruling. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg has the details of this case.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: Fauzia Din came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 and subsequently became a U.S. citizen. She speaks pretty good English, but is more comfortable speaking through an interpreter.

FAUZIA DIN: (Through interpreter) There was no security for women in Afghanistan and I wanted to come here to get security and just freedom.

TOTENBERG: In 2006, she returned to Afghanistan to marry an Afghan native whom she and her family had long known. Back in the states, she petitioned for an immigrant visa for her husband. The immigration service approved the application and her husband was directed to the American Embassy in Pakistan for an interview. There he was told he'd be receiving a visa soon, but it never came. Three years later, Fauzia Din's congressman made inquiries on her behalf. The State Department then told her that her husband had been turned down for, quote, "terrorist activities." That, despite the fact that the husband has long been the chief of staff for the minister of education in Afghanistan. Further inquiries prove fruitless and eventually Din went to court seeking to get a more complete explanation of what her husband had supposedly done. She argued that the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law bars the government from separating an American citizen from her spouse without some further explanation for the spouse's exclusion. Din won in the lower court, but today the Supreme Court reversed that ruling by a splintered vote. Writing for three members of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that the Constitution bars the government from depriving a person of liberty. But he said that liberty, at the time the constitution was written, meant only freedom from imprisonment or restraint and that it never was meant to include the right to live with one's husband. True, he said, the court has for decades sought to expand the concept of liberty to include certain fundamental rights, like the right to marry, but nothing is preventing Din from being married, he said. There's no constitutional right to live in the U.S. with one's alien spouse. Joining his opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately for himself and Justice Samuel Alito. They said that even assuming Fauzia Din does in fact have a liberty interest in having her husband live here, Congress has decided that at least in the area of national security the government does not have to give more details than it did here - namely a specific citation of the section of the law barring anyone involved in terrorist activities. That, of course, leaves Fauzia Din with little to no information to rebut. And yet, the court's decision seemed to move the goal post at least a bit on visa rejections, so says NYU law professor Burt Neuborne. He observes that under the old law the government didn't have to give any explanation at all. But he notes when you add the Kennedy-Alito opinion to the opinion of the four dissenters, the rule does seem to be less rigid.

BURT NEUBORNE: Six of them at least say that you just can't be turned away without an explanation. That in itself is an advance 'cause the old law is that they didn't even have to tell you why.

TOTENBERG: The four dissenters said that in their view, the government should have to give more details about why a spouse is being excluded. Just citing a statutory provision is not enough wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for the four. It's analogous to telling a criminal defendant that he's charged with, quote, "breaking the law." Such a generality simply doesn't provide enough information to allow a defendant - or Fauzia Din and her husband - to mount a defense. I do not deny the importance of national security, said Breyer, but protecting ordinary citizens from arbitrary government action is fundamental to our constitutional system. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.