WASHINGTON ( AP ) — , The Supreme Court , on Friday ruled against a , California , woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way his tattoos were interpreted.
Citizens do n’t always have the right to vote in federal government decisions regarding whether an immigrant spouse is legally reside in the United States. According to the 6- 3 choice, ideological lines were used.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett read the majority opinion from the chair while reading the majority view joined by her own liberals, noting that” parliament has never made marriage immigration a matter of correct”.
While a voter “certainly has a fundamental right to marriage,” Barrett claimed, “it is a mistake to assume that the country’s citizens have a fundamental proper that you control how Congress exercises its sovereign energy to accept or reject foreigners.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a protest joined by her liberal acquaintances that “gravely undervalues the right to union in the immigration context.”
Sandra Muoz, a civil rights attorney from Los Angeles who next had access to her Salvadoran husband almost ten years ago, was past allowed to live with him.
After getting married in 2010, the pair began the application for an immigrant card. Luis Asencio- Cordero, who had been living in the U. S. without lawful position, had to travel to the embassy in San Salvador to complete the process.
However, after that, the judicial officer rejected his application and cited a law prohibiting entry for those who could engage in immoral activity.
The State Department declined to provide a more specific purpose, but they discovered that the rejection was in part due to a judicial officer’s determination that his tattoos most likely indicated that he was a member of the gang MS-13.
Asencio-Cornero has no legal past and has never been a member of any gangs. His lawyers claimed in court documents that the tattoos, which included Our Lady of Guadalupe, musical masks, and a psychologist Sigmund Freud, did not accurately reflect his intellectual interests and Catholic faith.
The State Department was ordered to explain the reason and have the card application reviewed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Muoz.
Following an appeal from the State Department, the Supreme Court overturned that decision.
___
Fatima Hussein, a author for The Associated Press, contributed to this article.
