[3] Writing for a plurality of the court,[fn 1] 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.

[24] Even if the Court assumed that Din did have a fundamental liberty interest in living with her spouse, "the notice she received regarding her husband’s visa denial satisfied due process.

'"[28] Additionally, Justice Breyer argued that the notice provided to Berashk was inadequate, and was the equivalent of "telling a criminal defendant only that he is accused of 'breaking the law.

[30] The Los Angeles Times' editorial board criticized the Court for allowing consular officials to deny a visa "simply by asserting a vague connection to terrorism.

[33] In June 2015, Nina Totenberg reported that Din was in the process of submitting further character evidence about her husband to the State Department so that officials can re-evaluate Berashk's visa application.

[34] In light of the case's extensive discussion about fundamental rights associated with marriage, analysts suggested the Justices' views in Kerry v. Din would foreshadow the outcome of Court's upcoming decision in Obergefell v.

[38] In Department of State v. Muñoz (2024), the Supreme Court considered the same legal question again – this time with a majority adopting the rationale of the plurality opinion in Kerry v. Din.

In an opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held that a "citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.