[OldDeckHand]

So even though Article I, Section 8 expressly provides Congress with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”, it does not have the power to define what it means in the immigration law when it uses the term “spouse”?"

With respect to the number of marriages it recognizes, sure.

I'm pretty sure however, that immigration has NOTHING to do with what marriage licenses that California issues.

This case wasn't called Kenya v. HHS, it was called MA v. HHS. See the difference?

[Gee Wally]

Section 319(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states, in part, "Any person whose spouse is a citizen of the United States may be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements of this title ...."

Can we agree that Congress has the power to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”?

Or is Congress prohibited from passing this part of the Immigration and Naturalization law because it talks about the spouse of a citizen?

In certain cases, the marriage of the U.S. citizen to the non-U.S. citizen spouse may have occurred outside of the United States. So the marriage being looked at occurred under the law of a foreign jurisdiction. And you still contend that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to define, for purposes of Federal law, the terms "marriage" and "spouse"?