Summary
This Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses a constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes unlawful reentry into the United States after prior removal. The defendants argued that the statute violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because its 1929 predecessor was enacted with discriminatory intent against Mexican and Latin American immigrants. The court rejected this theory, holding that the 1952 reenactment and subsequent amendments were not motivated by racial animus and thus do not carry forward any historical taint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violates the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment because its predecessor was enacted with discriminatory intent and the statute allegedly perpetuates that intent.
- Whether the defendants established under the Arlington Heights framework that § 1326 was enacted or maintained with discriminatory purpose and had a disparate impact.
- What standards of review apply to the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss and to its factual finding concerning congressional discriminatory intent.
Holdings
- Section 1326 is constitutional against the defendants' challenge because they failed to establish that the 1952 Congress or subsequent Congresses acted with discriminatory purpose in enacting or maintaining the statute.
- The alleged discriminatory intent of the 1929 Congress did not taint § 1326, which was enacted in 1952 and repeatedly amended thereafter, absent evidence that the later Congresses acted with discriminatory purpose.
- The defendants failed to prove that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the enactment or maintenance of § 1326.
Key quotations
“Laws do not carry forward “taint” through reenactment unless the later legislature acted with the same constitutionally impermissible purpose.” (at 1294)
“The burden lies with the challenger to show that the relevant legislature acted with discriminatory purpose.” (at 1295)
“The judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED.” (at 1306)
Factual background
Ferretiz-Hernandez, a Mexican national, was previously convicted of a drug-trafficking conspiracy, removed to Mexico, later reentered the United States, and was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Felix-Salinas, also a Mexican national, had prior convictions, was removed twice, unlawfully reentered, and was charged under § 1326. Chiroy-Cac, a Guatemalan national, was removed in 2009, later found in the United States, and charged with unlawful reentry. The defendants argued that § 1326 perpetuated discriminatory intent allegedly present in the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 and disproportionately affected Mexican and other Latin American immigrants.
Procedural history
Each defendant was indicted for unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Magistrate judges recommended denial, the district court adopted the recommendations and denied the motions, and the defendants were subsequently convicted or entered conditional guilty pleas preserving the constitutional issue for appeal. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed the district court's judgments.