Justices say U.S. citizen cannot appeal Afghan husband's visa denial

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that U.S. immigration officials can deny entry to suspected terrorists without offering a detailed explanation, even at the cost of keeping a married couple oceans apart.

Three justices said denying a visa to a former Taliban civil servant in Afghanistan did not violate his wife's right to "life, liberty or property." Two others said that even if it did, sufficient reason was given for the denial. That combination from the court's conservative wing was enough to uphold the government's action on a 5-4 vote.

The case pitted a law designed to guard against terrorism against a married couple's desire to live together in the United States. In the end, the high court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and upheld the action of U.S. immigration officials.

The case was brought by Fauzia Din, whose husband, Kanishka Berashk, was denied entry — presumably because of his past Taliban connections.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the plurality opinion for himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. He said Din retains the right to live in the United States or with her husband in Afghanistan but lacks the right to have both.

"She claims that the government denied her due process of law when, without adequate explanation of the reason for the visa denial, it deprived her of her constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse," he said. "There is no such constitutional right."

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito agreed Din should lose her appeal but not because she has no cause of action. Instead, Kennedy said, the government had the right to base its decision on a law that blocks visas for people who participate in terrorist activities — even without specifying what Berashk did.

"The government satisfied due process when it notified Din's husband that his visa was denied under the immigration statute's terrorism bar," Kennedy said.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent, arguing that Din has a constitutional right to live here with her husband and that the State Department did not offer sufficient reason for the visa denial.

"Properly apprised of the grounds for the government's action, Ms. Din can then take appropriate action — whether this amounts to an appeal, internal agency review, or (as is likely here) an opportunity to submit additional evidence and obtain reconsideration," Breyer said.