In the case of Kerry v. Din, Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen originally from Afghanistan, petitioned for her husband Kanishka Berashk to receive an immigrant visa. However, his application was denied under Section 1182(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act due to terrorist activities but without any specific reasons given. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Kerry (then Secretary of State), stating that consular decisions are not subject to judicial review and that Din had no constitutional right violated by the denial as she did not have a liberty interest in her husband's receipt of a visa. This decision upheld what is known as "consular nonreviewability," which means courts generally cannot examine immigration officials' decisions about who can enter or stay in the country.

In the dissenting opinion for Kerry v. Din, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued that Ms. Din had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to due process of law. They contended that the government's refusal to provide a detailed reason for denying her husband's visa application violated this right. The dissenters pointed out that historically, American law has recognized and protected certain fundamental aspects of individual freedom including personal decisions relating to marriage and family life without undue interference from the state. Therefore they believed Ms.Din should have been given an explanation as well as an opportunity to contest it before any adverse action was taken against her or her spouse.