Master Supreme Court sharply limited judicial review of a U.S. citizen's due process challenge to a spouse's visa denial, holding that a statutory citation to terrorism-related inadmissibility is a facially legitimate and bona fide reason absent bad faith. with this comprehensive case brief.
Kerry v. Din is a cornerstone case at the intersection of constitutional due process, immigration law, and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. The Supreme Court confronted whether a U.S. citizen has a constitutionally protected liberty interest that entitles her to judicial review and a fuller explanation when the government denies her noncitizen spouse an immigrant visa on terrorism-related grounds. Although the opinions fractured, a controlling concurrence clarified that, even assuming a liberty interest exists, the Due Process Clause requires no more than a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial—and a bare statutory citation can suffice.
For law students, the case is significant for three reasons. First, it illustrates how the plenary power doctrine and national security considerations cabin constitutional protections in the admission context. Second, it showcases the practical force of Kleindienst v. Mandel's deferential standard and how the Court applies Marks v. United States to identify a controlling opinion in a splintered decision. Third, it signals the narrow role courts may play in reviewing consular visa decisions, particularly where Congress has restricted disclosure obligations for security-related inadmissibility.
576 U.S. 86 (2015)
Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen, married Kanishka Berashk, an Afghan national who had worked for the Afghan Ministry of Social Welfare. After USCIS approved Din's I-130 spousal petition, Berashk applied for an immigrant visa and interviewed at the U.S. consulate in Islamabad, Pakistan. The consular officer denied the visa, providing only a citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), the Immigration and Nationality Act's terrorism-related inadmissibility ground, without detailing the underlying facts. Din sought an explanation and reconsideration, but the government refused further disclosure, relying in part on statutory provisions that limit notice obligations for security-based denials. Din then sued the Secretary of State and others in federal court, alleging that the opaque denial violated her Fifth Amendment due process right to marry and live in the United States with her spouse. The district court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Din had plausibly alleged a due process violation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Does a U.S. citizen have a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in her spouse's immigrant visa application that entitles her to judicial review and a fuller explanation of the denial, and, if so, is a bare citation to a terrorism-related inadmissibility provision sufficient process?
Under the controlling concurrence (Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Alito), applying Kleindienst v. Mandel, when the Executive denies a visa to an alien spouse, courts limit review to confirming that the denial rests on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason; absent a plausible showing of bad faith, courts will not look behind the stated reason. A citation to a specific statutory ground of inadmissibility, including 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), ordinarily suffices as such a reason, particularly in light of Congress's limits on disclosure for security-based denials (see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3)). The plurality (Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) would hold there is no protected liberty interest in a spouse's admission; the dissent (Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would recognize a liberty interest and require more process. Under Marks v. United States, Justice Kennedy's concurrence controls as the narrowest grounds supporting the judgment.
The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that Din was not entitled to additional process. Either there is no protected liberty interest in a spouse's visa (plurality), or, assuming such an interest, the government satisfied due process by providing a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial via citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), and Din alleged no plausible bad faith (controlling concurrence).
Plurality (Scalia, C.J. Roberts, Thomas): The Due Process Clause protects against deprivations of life, liberty, or property, but Din was not deprived of any recognized liberty interest. While marriage is a fundamental right, it does not entail a corresponding constitutional right to the admission of a noncitizen spouse. The historical understanding of due process and immigration reflects the sovereign's plenary authority to exclude aliens and the absence of an entitlement to have one's spouse admitted. Because there was no liberty interest at stake, no process was due. Controlling concurrence (Kennedy, joined by Alito): The Court need not resolve whether a liberty interest exists. Even assuming one, the government satisfied due process under Kleindienst v. Mandel by offering a facially legitimate and bona fide reason—its reliance on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), the terrorism-related ground. Congress has explicitly circumscribed disclosure in this setting (8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3)), relieving the government of any obligation to provide detailed factual bases. Courts may not look behind the government's stated reason absent an affirmative showing of bad faith by the consular officer, which Din did not plausibly allege. The statutory citation alone sufficed. Dissent (Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan): Marriage is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government's denial substantially burdens Din's marital relationship. Due process requires, at minimum, a meaningful explanation of the denial so the citizen can respond or correct errors. Given the breadth and complexity of § 1182(a)(3)(B), a bare statutory citation is inadequate to guard against arbitrary or mistaken decisions. The dissent would remand for the government to provide a statement of reasons compatible with national security needs. Because Justice Kennedy's concurrence offers the narrowest rationale necessary to the judgment, it governs under Marks. The operative standard thus remains Mandel's facially legitimate and bona fide reason test, satisfied here by a statutory citation, with review limited to allegations of bad faith.
Kerry v. Din crystallizes the limits of constitutional due process in the visa context and entrenches the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. For practitioners and students, it clarifies that challenges to consular decisions are generally foreclosed beyond verifying a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and that a statutory citation to terrorism-related inadmissibility typically suffices. The case also exemplifies use of Marks to identify a controlling opinion in a fractured Court and foreshadows later cases, such as Trump v. Hawaii, that invoke Mandel's deferential standard. In short, Din is essential for understanding how the Constitution's protections operate—narrowly—when national sovereignty, foreign affairs, and immigration control intersect.
Justice Kennedy's concurrence (joined by Justice Alito) controls under the Marks rule because it provides the narrowest grounds supporting the judgment. While the plurality would find no liberty interest at all, Kennedy assumed a liberty interest but held due process satisfied under Kleindienst v. Mandel's facially legitimate and bona fide reason test. Courts therefore apply Kennedy's concurrence as the governing standard.
A reason is facially legitimate and bona fide when it relies on a valid statutory ground of inadmissibility and there is no plausible allegation of bad faith by the decisionmaker. In Din, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) (terrorism-related inadmissibility) sufficed, particularly given Congress's direction that detailed notice is not required in security-based denials (8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3)). Absent particularized allegations of dishonesty or improper motive, courts will not look behind the stated ground.
No. The plurality concluded there is no such liberty interest, and the controlling concurrence did not find it necessary to recognize one. Even assuming a protected interest in marriage, the Constitution does not confer a right to compel the admission of a noncitizen spouse. Judicial review is limited to confirming that the government offered a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denial.
Yes, but only in narrow circumstances. A citizen can raise a constitutional claim and seek limited review under the Mandel/Din framework. To succeed, the citizen would need to plausibly allege and ultimately show bad faith—such as that the consular officer fabricated reasons or acted on an impermissible basis—so that courts may look behind the stated statutory ground. Mere disagreement with the decision or a desire for more details will not suffice.
Din specifically addresses a terrorism-based denial, where Congress restricts disclosure (8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3)). For other grounds, consular practice generally includes providing the statutory basis and, sometimes, brief factual reasons. But the overarching Mandel/Din principle remains: courts review only for a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not second-guess consular judgments absent plausible bad faith.
Kerry v. Din establishes that, in the visa context, due process protections for U.S. citizens are sharply constrained by the government's plenary power over admissions and by national security considerations. The controlling concurrence holds that a citation to a valid inadmissibility statute provides a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denial, and courts will not go behind that reason unless the citizen plausibly alleges bad faith.
For law students, Din is a vital study in constitutional limits, administrative deference, and the mechanics of fractured Supreme Court decisions. It underscores the continuing force of Kleindienst v. Mandel, clarifies how Marks identifies a controlling opinion, and signals the narrow path for any judicial review of consular determinations—especially when security-based inadmissibility is invoked.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →