The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Department of State v. Muñoz on Friday, and it is some magnificent assholery. Muñoz refers to Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen who married an undocumented Salvadoran named Luis Asencio-Cordero back in 2010. They have a child together.

Contrary to what you might think, marrying a U.S. citizen does not automatically confer citizenship on a foreigner. And things get very complicated when the foreigner has entered the United States illegally. Now, you might think it’s not such a bad thing to inconvenience people who violate our immigration laws, and I probably wouldn’t disagree with you. But, in this case, Mr. Ascencio-Cordero attempted to do things by the book. You see, in order to get the legal right to live in the United States he had to go back to El Salvador and talk to a consular affairs officer. But since he risked being denied reentry, and this would impair Ms. Muñoz liberty interest as a U.S. citizen, the couple first applied to the Department of Homeland Security for a waiver that would prevent him from being denied readmission.

The problem is that the consular offices are run by the Department of State, and while they use the same statutes as DHS, they don’t have the same standards. DHS officers have to provide a rather detailed rationale to anyone they reject, but the State Department merely has to cite a statute. In this case, the consular officer in El Salvador rejected Asencio-Cordero without specific cause, merely citing 8 U. S. C. §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) to argue that he “planned to engage in ‘unlawful activity.'”

Explanations were sought, but none were forthcoming. New applications were filed, but they were also rejected. Appeals were made, but the State Department denied them.

Finally, a lawsuit compelled the State Department to disclose that Asencio-Cordero was denied access because the consular officer believed he was affiliated with the violent MS-13 gang. This was based on an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of a tattoo. Asencio-Cordero isn’t a gang member; he was “a celebrated workers’ rights lawyer” in Los Angeles, California until he was banished from his wife and child.

Here’s the thing, though. The law is pretty clear that the courts cannot review consular decisions except in cases where those decisions affect a U.S. citizen’s fundamental rights. An appeals court ruled that Muñoz’s right to marriage was impermissibly denied when her husband wasn’t provided any reason for being denied reentry. But even the dissenting judges on the Supreme Court recognize that had the consular officer simply said he believed Asencio-Cordero was a gang member intent on committing crimes in the United States, that would not be reviewable. In other words, a mistaken belief that a tattoo signals gang membership is sufficient to screw over this family. At issue is whether you can string an American citizen along in this Kafkaesque manner for years without so much as an explanation.

And the conservatives on the court could have simply said ‘yes,’ which would be bad enough. But instead the used this case, which was brought to correct a gross miscarriage of justice, to do real damage to all families in similar situations, where one spouse is a citizen and the other is not. The conservative majority ruled that a U.S. citizen no longer has a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.

And, so, instead of being reunited in the United States, this family is now responsible, because they lost so catastrophically at the Supreme Court after winning their appeal, for making the situation worse for countless other families in the future.