The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that federal courts cannot review visa revocations made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially in cases involving suspected marriage fraud. The decision underscores the wide authority DHS holds when it comes to immigration decisions, particularly around granting and taking away visas.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing on behalf of the Court, explained that Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to revoke a visa “at any time, for what he deems just and proper.” In other words, this decision is largely left to the judgment of DHS and isn’t something courts can weigh in on.
The case at the center of this ruling involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband’s visa was canceled after DHS claimed their marriage was fraudulent. Bouarfa challenged the decision, but the Court sided with DHS, saying its discretion in these matters can’t be second-guessed by federal judges.
This decision could have a significant impact on immigration policy—especially under the leadership of President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for tougher immigration enforcement. Trump appointed Thomas Homan as the new “border czar,” charging him with stepping up deportations and border security. Homan, known for his hardline stance during his time as acting director of ICE, is expected to continue with strong enforcement tactics.
The Supreme Court’s ruling further supports the administration’s ability to take quick and firm action on visa matters, aligning with broader efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and prevent system abuse.
Still, the decision has sparked debate. Critics worry that removing court oversight could lead to unchecked power and potential violations of individual rights. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that strong enforcement is needed to keep the immigration process fair and free of fraud.
As immigration policy continues to evolve, balancing national security with fairness and personal rights remains a major talking point in the national conversation.