Justice Sonia Sotomayor has fiercely criticized her Supreme Court colleagues in a dissent to a ruling on a spousal visa case, arguing that the decision will have particularly harmful consequences for same-sex couples. Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elana Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, contends that the ruling could force same-sex couples to move to countries that do not recognize same-sex marriage or even criminalize homosexuality.
The case involved Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen married to a citizen of El Salvador who was denied an immigrant visa to the United States. Muñoz sued the State Department, arguing that her husband’s visa denial was unjustified. The State Department claimed they suspected the husband of being a member of the MS-13 gang based on his tattoos, a claim the couple denies.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Muñoz has the right to marry, but her husband does not have the right to live in the United States with her. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that Congress has the authority to regulate spousal immigration, including restrictions on entry. She argued that the State Department has the responsibility to implement these requirements at embassies and consulates abroad.
However, Sotomayor strongly disagreed with the majority’s decision. She argued that the ruling places the fate of American couples in the hands of other countries’ immigration laws, a burden she believes will fall most heavily on same-sex couples and those who cannot afford to relocate to their noncitizen spouse’s country of origin.
Sotomayor also criticized the State Department’s assessment of the husband’s tattoos, suggesting that some of the imagery represents “pan-Latinx identity” rather than gang affiliation. She pointed out that the husband has no criminal record and that some of his tattoos depict symbols like “Our Lady of Guadalipe, Sigmund Freud, a tribal pattern with a paw print, and theatrical masks with dice and cards.” She contends that these images have cultural significance in Latin America.
This ruling has sparked controversy and raised concerns about the impact it will have on the rights and well-being of same-sex couples seeking to build a life together in the United States. Sotomayor’s dissent highlights the potential challenges and uncertainties that this ruling could create for these couples, underscoring the importance of ensuring equal rights and protections for all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.
