| Kerry v. Din | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 23, 2015 Decided June 15, 2015 | |
| Full case name | John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners v. Fauzia Din |
| Docket no. | 13–1402 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 86 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2128; 192 L. Ed. 2d 183 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted, Din v. Clinton, No. 3:10-cv-00533, 2010 WL 2560492 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2010); reversed, Din v. Kerry, 718 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014). |
| Holding | |
| Consular agents did not violate procedural due process when they did not disclose reasons for denying a visa application | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment), joined by Alito |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case,[1] he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.”[2] Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.[3]
Writing for a plurality of the court,[fn 1] Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there is no constitutional right to live with one’s spouse, and because Din was not denied “life, liberty, or property,” she was not entitled to due process.[6] Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Din was denied liberty without due process of law, and that there is a fundamental right for spouses to “live together and to raise a family,” which enjoys basic due process protections.[7] In the weeks following the announcement of the Court's decision, some analysts suggested the Justices' opinions in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome in Obergefell v. Hodges.[8]
- ^ Kerry v. Din, No. 13-1402, 576 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting that Justice Scalia's plurality opinion "is not controlling"); see also Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (holding that in plurality opinions, the narrowest concurring opinion is the controlling opinion).
- ^ Din, slip op. at 5-6 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
- ^ Din, slip op. at 6 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
- ^ Marks, 430 U.S. at 193.
- ^ Marks, 430 U.S. at 193 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
- ^ Din, slip op. at 15 (2015) (plurality opinion).
- ^ Din, slip op. at 1-2 (plurality opinion).
- ^ See, e.g., Kevin Johnson, Opinion Analysis: Limited judicial review of consular officer visa decisions – foreshadowing the result in the same-sex marriage case? SCOTUSblog, (Jun. 15, 2015, 5:02 PM); Ruthann Robson, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Does Immigration Marriage Case Foreshadow Same-Sex Marriage Case? (Accessed June 15, 2015); Ian Millhiser, Thinkprogress, Justice Scalia Turns Obscure Immigration Case Into A Proxy War Over Marriage Equality (Accessed June 29, 2015).
Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search