About: Kerry v. Din

An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse. Writing for a plurality of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there is no constitutional right to live with one’s spouse, and because Din was not denied “life, liberty, or property,” she was not entitled to due process. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Din was denied liberty without due process of law, and that there is a fundamental right for spouses to “live together and to raise a family,” which enjoys basic due process protections. In the weeks following the announcement of the Court's decision, some analysts suggested the Justices' opinions in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome in Obergefell v. Hodges. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 47117603 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 17379 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1072129293 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-02-23 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 2015 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Kerry v. Din, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Kennedy (en)
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-06-15 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 2015 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Breyer (en)
dbp:docket
  • 13 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners v. Fauzia Din (en)
dbp:holding
  • Consular agents did not violate procedural due process when they did not disclose reasons for denying a visa application (en)
dbp:joinconcurrence
  • Alito (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
dbp:joinplurality
  • Roberts, Thomas (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Kerry v. Din (en)
dbp:opinionannouncement
dbp:oralargument
dbp:otherSource
  • Supreme Court (en)
dbp:otherUrl
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0
dbp:plurality
  • Scalia (en)
dbp:prior
  • 25920.0
dbp:uspage
  • ___ (en)
dbp:usvol
  • 576 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Kerry v. Din (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • John F. Kerry,Secretary of State, et al., Petitioners v. Fauzia Din (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License