The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday against strengthening marriage rights for binational couples who wish to live together in the United States.

Justices found in Kerry v. Din that naturalized U.S. citizen Fauzia Din cannot force greater explanation about or overturn in court the rejection of her Afghan husband Kanishka Berashk’s visa application.

The couple married in 2006. A year later, Din became an American citizen and Berashk requested a U.S. visa to join her. But his prior work in the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan apparently derailed the plan.

U.S. consular officials in Pakistan rejected his visa request, citing a broad terrorism-related statute.

The court split three ways, with a three-vote plurality led by Justice Antonin Scalia finding no “liberty interest” entitling Din to due process and the right to challenge the rejection on her husband’s behalf.

"Because Fauzia Din was not deprived of 'life, liberty, or property' when the Government denied Kanishka Berashk admission to the United States, there is no process due to her under the Constitution," Scalia wrote. "To the extent that she received any explanation for the Government’s decision, this was more than the Due Process Clause required."

A more restrained concurrence from Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito found the curt visa rejection satisfied any due process requirement and that it was unnecessary to answer the constitutional question.

Justice Stephen Breyer, representing the four more liberal judges and agreeing with an earlier appeals court ruling, likened the case to other marriage-related issues handled by the court, and wrote Din was entitled to at least a more specific explanation for why the visa was denied.

“As this Court has long recognized, the institution of marriage, which encompasses the right of spouses to live together and to raise a family, is central to human life, requires and enjoys community support, and plays a central role in most individuals’ 'orderly pursuit of happiness,'" Breyer wrote. “The generality of the statutory provision cited and the lack of factual support mean that here, the reason given is analogous to telling a criminal defendant only that he is accused of 'breaking the law.'"

Attorney Mark Haddad, who represented Din, says he was disappointed by the case's outcome, but that Berashk already has submitted a new visa application – this time with legal assistance, expert commentary and statements from friends and family – and is hopeful the State Department will grant permission for him to enter the U.S.

“Mr. Berashk has had absolutely no involvement at any time in supporting the Taliban occupation,” Haddad says.

Berashk, who still lives in the Afghan capital Kabul, was a payroll clerk in the country’s education ministry, and Haddad says he was not supportive of the group’s radical objectives.

“He was very supportive of schools that had female teachers and female students – to the extent his professional work had anything to do with issues the Taliban are known for, it was contrary to the Taliban’s goals,” he says. “It was very painful for him to learn his visa application was being denied for something he couldn’t control: the invasion by the Taliban and their takeover of the government.”

Haddad says he does see hopeful signs in the concurring opinion, inferring from it that Taliban government work may not be automatically disqualifying and seeing as positive the emphasis on at least a “facially legitimate and bona fide" explanation for denials.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration expert who teaches at Cornell University Law School, says the decision “continues a long line of Supreme Court cases that hold when it comes to immigration that consular official have carte blanche to deny a visa and it’s very hard to get those denials overturned in federal court.”

But Yale-Loehr sees reconsideration of the issue as possible in the future.

Immigration Cartoons View All 171 Images

He and Haddad agree the lack of deference provided to binational marriages likely has no bearing on the court’s highly anticipated decision on same-sex marriage, which is expected later this month.