protected interest

The high court will consider whether the refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse “impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen,” and, if so, whether notifying a visa applicant that they were deemed inadmissible suffices as due process.

The high court will consider whether the refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse “impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen,” and, if so, whether notifying a visa applicant that they were deemed inadmissible suffices as due process.

Those questions are “whether a consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen,” and “whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible... suffices to provide any process that is due.”

“If an ineligible candidate appears on the ballot that Petitioners will cast in the election, Petitioners will suffer an injury in fact to a legally protected interest under Colorado law because the election would not be among eligible candidates, the Secretary of State would have violated her duties under the U.S. Constitution and Colorado law, the ineligible candidate would have affected the integrity and fairness of the election, and the party could end up with an ineligible nominee in the general election.”

The reason is that the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context enables consumers to make better purchasing decisions, while a business’ constitutionally protected interest in not providing this information is “minimal.”