The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision affirming that federal courts do not have the authority to review visa revocations when the Department of Homeland Security determines a visa was approved under false pretenses, such as a sham marriage. The ruling reinforces the broad discretion granted to immigration authorities and limits judicial involvement once a visa has already been approved and later withdrawn.

In its decision, the Court clarified a key distinction in immigration law: while federal courts may review the government’s initial denial of a visa petition, they generally cannot intervene after the Department of Homeland Security revokes an approved petition. According to the justices, Congress intentionally granted DHS wide latitude in making revocation decisions.

The ruling could have significant implications for immigration enforcement, particularly as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to implement sweeping changes to immigration policy, including large-scale deportation efforts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the Court’s opinion, emphasizing that the relevant statute represents a clear delegation of authority to the executive branch. She described the law as granting DHS discretion that is both expansive and explicit.

The statute at issue allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to revoke a previously approved visa petition “at any time” if there is “good and sufficient cause.” The Court noted that Congress did not impose detailed standards or procedural limits on how or when this authority may be exercised, underscoring its discretionary nature.

“This provision is a quintessential grant of discretion,” the Court wrote, pointing out that the statute uses permissive language rather than mandatory requirements. All nine justices agreed with the interpretation.

The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, centered on Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband lost his approved visa after immigration officials concluded that he had previously entered into a fraudulent marriage. Under immigration law, such conduct can permanently bar an individual from obtaining lawful permanent resident status.

Bouarfa challenged the revocation in federal court, arguing that the decision should be subject to judicial review. However, the Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding that Congress intentionally limited court oversight to initial visa denials, not revocations.

During oral arguments, several justices focused on the structure of the law itself, noting that Congress explicitly provided mechanisms for court review in some immigration decisions while excluding others. That distinction, the Court concluded, demonstrated clear legislative intent to shield revocation decisions from judicial second-guessing.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that individuals whose visas are revoked are not entirely without options. He pointed out that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa, and if that new application were denied, the denial could then be challenged in court. Bouarfa’s attorney countered that restarting the process could take years and impose severe emotional and financial strain on families.

Immigration advocacy groups expressed concern that the ruling could further complicate an already overwhelmed system. With an immigration case backlog exceeding three million matters nationwide, critics argue that limiting court oversight may leave some individuals without meaningful recourse.

Civil liberties organizations also warned that restricting judicial review could allow potential constitutional violations — such as discrimination — to go unaddressed. However, the Court emphasized that the Bouarfa case itself involved no evidence of racial bias or improper motive.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a series of legal developments favorable to stricter immigration enforcement. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may continue using a Seattle-area airport for chartered deportation flights.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a local executive order issued in 2019 that attempted to block deportation operations at King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. The court found that King County violated its contractual obligations by refusing to allow federal immigration flights.

That ruling was widely viewed as a boost for the incoming Trump administration, which has pledged to begin a large-scale deportation campaign shortly after taking office. While legal challenges from advocacy groups are expected, administration officials have signaled they intend to proceed aggressively.

Trump’s incoming border enforcement chief, Tom Homan, has publicly stated that federal authorities will enforce immigration laws even if state or local officials attempt to interfere. Homan, a former Border Patrol agent and acting ICE director during Trump’s first term, has emphasized that federal law includes criminal penalties for obstructing immigration enforcement.

In a recent television interview, Homan said that while cooperation from local leaders is preferred, it is not required. He warned that individuals who knowingly obstruct or conceal violations of federal immigration law could face legal consequences.

As immigration policy once again moves to the forefront of national debate, the Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the executive branch’s authority in visa enforcement and signals a judiciary increasingly reluctant to intervene in discretionary immigration decisions.