Reasons for visa denials
Kerry v. Din
In brief
The Supreme Court wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back, but left unsettled whether Din had a constitutional right to a fuller explanation.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 15, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- Din challenged the State Department’s unexplained denial of her Afghan husband’s visa on terrorism-related grounds.
- Who it affects
- The decision did not settle whether a U.S. citizen has a protected constitutional interest in a spouse’s visa application.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back (vacated and remanded); Scalia found no violation of Din’s right to fair procedures (due process), while Kennedy said the notice was enough even assuming she had that right.
The notice cited the immigration law’s ban on visas for people engaged in terrorist activities, but gave no further explanation specific to Din’s husband.
Din said the visa denial violated her own Fifth Amendment right to fair procedures, even though her husband was the visa applicant.
Question presented
Is the government required to give a detailed explanation for denying an alien's visa based on terrorism-related ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 718 F. 3d 856, vacated and remanded. JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS, concluded that the Government did not deprive Din of any constitutional right entitling her to due process of law.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
Scalia, joined by Roberts and Thomas, concluded that the government had not denied Din a constitutional right to fair procedures (due process). Kennedy, joined by Alito, said that even if Din had such a right, the notice was enough; he stressed that the ruling did not decide whether a citizen has a protected interest in a spouse’s visa application.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Kennedywrote separately
- Alito
From the opinions
“In my view, Ms. Din should prevail on this constitutional claim.”
What's next
Din’s case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. The Supreme Court did not itself order the State Department to issue a visa.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Din
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.