BREAKING: SCOTUS rules US citizens do not have right for non-citizen spouses to get legal status if

[Right_in_Virginia]

BREAKING: SCOTUS rules US citizens do not have right for non-citizen spouses to get legal status if visa is denied
The New Millennial, Jun 21, 2024

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Department of State v Munoz, ruling that "a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country."

"Munoz’s claim to a procedural due process right in someone else’s legal proceeding would have unsettling collateral consequences. Her position would usher in a new strain of constitutional law—one that prevents the government from taking actions that 'indirectly or incidentally' burden a citizen’s legal rights," a syllabus of the court’s opinion states.

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-scotus-rules-us-citizens-do-not-have-right-for-non-citizen-spouses-to-get-legal-status-if-visa-is-denied?utm_campaign=64501

[mountaineer]

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
Is there a new leaker at the Supreme Court?

Just days ago, the Biden regime announced a radical new executive order to legalize the immigrant spouses of citizens, even if those immigrants were in the U.S. to commit crimes or were here legally. It was very strange timing for such an oddly specific EO.

Now we know why: the Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-3 decision that the U.S. is not required to admit immigrant spouses of American citizens in a case involving an MS-13 member whose spouse was a U.S. citizen and who demanded legalization.

“From this Nation’s beginnings, the admission of noncitizens into this country was characterized as ‘of favor [and] not right,” the Court ruled.

Somebody at the White House was clearly tipped off about the unannounced Supreme Court decision, which explains why the White House rushed out such a shoddily written and argued new executive order to open the border even more: the Biden regime knew how the Supreme Court was going to rule, and it sought to pre-empt the court with its absurd EO.

So the question now is: who, exactly, is leaking information on rulings to the Biden White House?

10:43 AM · Jun 21, 2024

[PeteS in CA]

...
So the question now is: who, exactly, is leaking information on rulings to the Biden White House?
...

I can suggest 3 judges and their respective staff.

[GtHawk]

Oh that’ll stop Brandon just like the USSC ruling on student loan forgiveness, Brandon totally followed than one ….right?

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1804163183315140786

[libertybele]

I can suggest 3 judges and their respective staff.

 

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/RealPatrickWebb/status/1804191299672650103

[mountaineer]

I can suggest 3 judges and their respective staff.

The three Justices that voted against the decision were Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Nuff said.

[Hoodat]

Along those same lines, the parents of anchor babies do not have a Constitutional right to remain in the US either.  Just because a woman crosses the border illegally and then gives birth to a US citizen, it does not mean she gets to stay.  She is still subject to six months in prison followed by immediate deportation.

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court gun precedent upheld despite Thomas dissent
By
Kaelan Deese
June 21, 2024 3:34 pm
.

The 2022 Supreme Court precedent that bolstered Second Amendment rights for gun owners was affirmed on Friday despite a testy dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas in a ruling that upheld a gun ban for domestic violence offenders.

Thomas was the lone dissenter from an 8-1 majority opinion in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders — a decision that pleased the Biden administration and gun control groups. But despite the victory in favor of the government’s position, legal and firearms experts say the justice’s 2022 decision in a landmark gun case known as Bruen was left unscathed.

When Thomas authored the 2022 New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a 6-3 ruling set forth a new test for courts requiring gun regulations to conform with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts and seven justices found that the domestic abuser gun statute could be likened to a tradition of disarming people who pose risks to public safety.

However, the Bruen author and lone dissenter in Rahimi said the majority failed to “point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3054847/supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent/