The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that federal courts cannot review immigration officials’ decisions to revoke previously approved visa petitions, a decision that could significantly strengthen executive power over immigration.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, stated that visa revocations are purely discretionary decisions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Congress has placed beyond judicial review.
The ruling’s timing is significant as Donald Trump has promised aggressive immigration changes if elected to a second term. Beyond his pledge to end birthright citizenship, Trump has vowed to conduct the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and reinstate his travel ban on certain countries. Under the Court’s decision, DHS would have broad, unreviewable power to revoke visas as part of these initiatives, with limited court oversight.
The case centered on Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose visa petition for her noncitizen husband was initially approved by DHS but later revoked after the agency determined he had previously entered into a “sham marriage” to evade immigration laws.
The case highlights a key distinction in immigration law: Some decisions are mandatory, where officials must follow specific rules (like denying a visa application if they find evidence of a sham marriage), while other decisions are discretionary, where Congress has given officials freedom to decide (like choosing whether to revoke an already approved visa). The Court found that visa revocations clearly fall into the discretionary category, meaning courts cannot review these decisions.
Immigration advocates warn the ruling could enable sweeping visa revocations under a future administration. While courts could still hear cases involving constitutional violations, such as revoking visas based on religion or without any process, the decision gives DHS significant latitude to implement broader immigration policies through visa revocations.
The Court noted some safeguards remain. Visa petitioners can file new applications if their approvals are revoked, and courts can still review initial visa denials. Justice Jackson emphasized this creates “room for mercy” in the system, though critics argue this protection may offer little practical help during aggressive enforcement periods.
The unanimous decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts over whether judges can review visa revocation decisions. The ruling will likely impact numerous immigration cases where DHS revokes previously approved visas after discovering disqualifying information.