Nuquay v. Blinken

Background

Senator James Emmanuel Nuquay, Ruthtoria Brown Nuquay, and RSN, identified in the opinion as Senator Nuquay’s minor daughter, sued Antony Blinken, Catherine Rodriguez, the United States Department of State, and the United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations. They challenged the Secretary of State’s determinations under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, as carried forward by later appropriations legislation, that the plaintiffs were ineligible to enter the United States.

Section 7031(c) makes certain foreign-government officials and their immediate family members ineligible for entry when the Secretary of State has credible information that they were involved in significant corruption or a gross violation of human rights. The law also provides exceptions and waivers, including when entry is necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. The State Department publicly designated Senator Nuquay and other Liberian officials on December 12, 2023, citing alleged involvement in significant corruption. Senator Nuquay sought to travel to the United States for meetings and events connected to the United Nations General Assembly.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s power to hear a case, or Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Section 7031(c) determinations are not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. That doctrine generally prevents federal courts from second-guessing decisions by United States consular officials to issue or withhold visas. The court explained that immigration and entry decisions involve the political branches’ authority over foreign relations and the admission or exclusion of foreign nationals. The court also noted that courts have treated the doctrine as involving justiciability—that is, whether a dispute is suitable for judicial decision—even though the doctrine’s precise relationship to subject-matter jurisdiction is not clear.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ challenge to their Section 7031(c) designations was not suitable for judicial review. It emphasized that the statute gives the Secretary of State authority to determine whether an official engaged in significant corruption and whether changed circumstances later make that person eligible again. The court also stated that Congress had not provided judicial review of the relevant visa decisions for foreign nationals outside the United States.

United Nations Headquarters Agreement argument

The plaintiffs relied on an earlier case involving the United Nations Headquarters Agreement to argue that the United States could not prevent Senator Nuquay from entering the United Nations headquarters to perform his official duties. The court found that argument did not change the justiciability analysis. It explained that Section 7031(c) expressly includes an exception when entry is necessary for the United States to fulfill its obligations under the agreement.

The court further stated that the State Department had no record that Liberia or Senator Nuquay had submitted an application invoking that exception. The opinion also states that Senator Nuquay had not and could not apply for a visa.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because it presented a non-justiciable question and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.