Is there another Supreme Court leaker?

The high court released five opinions on Friday in cases from the current term.

In Texas v. New Mexico, the court upholds the U.S.’s objections to a consent decree that would resolve the dispute over each state’s allocation of the waters of the Rio Grande.
The court rules 6-3 in Department of State v. Munoz that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.
In Erlinger v. United States, the court rules that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Smith v. Arizona, the court rules for the state that the confrontation clause does not bar an expert to present an absent analyst’s true statements in support the expert’s opinion.
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order in United States v. Rahimi.

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a 6-3 decision in the DEPARTMENT OF STATE v. MUNOZ that the US is not required to admit immigrant spouses of American citizens in a case involving an MS-13 gang member.

In the Department of State v Munoz opinion the Court ruled that “a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.”

The ruling involves American citizen Sandra Munoz who sued the State Department for the right to bring in her MS-13 husband to the US to live with her in the US.

Respondent Sandra Muñoz is an American citizen. In 2010, she married Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador. The couple eventually sought to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero so that they could live together in the United States. Muñoz filed a petition with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to have Asencio-Cordero classified as an immediate relative. (See 8 U. S. C. §§1151(b)(2)(A)(I), 1154(a)(1)(A).) USCIS granted Muñoz’s petition, and Asencio-Cordero traveled to the consulate in San Salvador to apply for a visa. (See §§1154(b), 1202.)

After conducting several interviews with AsencioCordero, a consular officer denied his application, citing §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in” certain specified offenses or “any other unlawful activity.”

Asencio-Cordero guessed that he was denied a visa based on a finding that he was a member of MS–13, a transnational criminal gang. So he disavowed any gang membership, and he and Muñoz pressed the consulate to reconsider the officer’s finding. When the consulate refused, they appealed to the Department of State, which agreed with the consulate’s determination. Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz then sued the Department of State and others (collectively, State Department), claiming that it had abridged Muñoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why Asencio-Cordero is inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar.

Curiously, just three days ago, Joe Biden issued a bizarrely specific Executive Order related to immigrant spouses of American citizens.

“The Biden administration on Tuesday announced an executive action allowing certain undocumented spouses and children of US citizens to apply for lawful permanent residency without leaving the country – a sweeping election-year move that could offer deportation protections to hundreds of thousands of people.” CNN reported this week.

“The action will provide legal status and protections for about 500,000 American families and roughly 50,000 noncitizen children of immigrants under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a US citizen, a senior administration official said. It amounts to one of the federal government’s biggest relief programs for undocumented immigrants since the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was announced by then-President Barack Obama in 2012.” the outlet reported.

The timing is suspicious.

Did someone leak the Supreme Court’s decision to the Biden White House?

“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.” The Federalist’s Sean Davis said.

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…

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 21, 2024

Top Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark also suspects there is a Supreme Court leaker.

I had exactly the same thought @seanmdav.

— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 21, 2024

The post Another Supreme Court Leak? Biden Announced Executive Order to Legalize Immigrant Spouses 3 Days Before SCOTUS Issues Ruling on Spouse’s Visa appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *