Page:Kerry v. Din.pdf/16

14

implicated the constitutionally grounded liberty interest in "'a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.'"

Ultimately, the dissent identifies no case holding that there is an implied nonfundamental right protected by procedural due process, and only one case even suggesting that there is. That suggestion, in Smith v. Organization of Foster Families For Equality & Reform, 431 U. S. 816 (1977), is contained in dictum in a footnote, id., at 842, n. 48. The holding of the case was that "the procedures provided by New York State . . . and by New York Cit[y] . . . are adequate to protect whatever liberty interests appellees may have." Id., at 856 (emphasis added).

The footnoted dictum that proposes to elevate to constitutional law is a dangerous doctrine. It vastly expands the scope of our implied-rights jurispru­dence by setting it free from the requirement that the liberty interest be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Na­tion’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 720–721 (inter­nal quotation marks omitted). Even shallow-rooted liber­ties would, thanks to this new procedural-rights-only notion of quasi-fundamental rights, qualify for judicially imposed procedural requirements. Moreover, gives no basis for distinguishing the fundamental rights recognized in the cases he depends on from the nonfundamental right he believes they give rise to in the present case.

Neither Din’s right to live with her spouse nor her right to live within this country is implicated here. There is a "simple distinction between government action that di­rectly affects a citizen’s legal rights, or imposes a direct re­straint on his liberty, and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only indirectly or inci­dentally." O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U. S. 773, 788 (1980). The Government has not refused to recognize Din’s marriage to Berashk, and Din remains free