United States v. Diggins, 36 F.4th 302

Background

On April 15, 2018, Maurice Diggins and his nephew committed two separate unprovoked, racially motivated assaults on Black men in Maine, causing severe jaw fractures and lasting harms.
A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Diggins with two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1) (hate crimes) and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371; the nephew later pleaded guilty.
The Assistant Attorney General (as the Attorney General’s designee) certified under 18 U.S.C. § 249(b)(1)(D) that a federal prosecution was "in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice."
Diggins moved to dismiss (arguing § 249(a)(1) exceeded Congress’s § 2 Thirteenth Amendment power and that the § 249(b)(1) certification was defective) and moved in limine to exclude white‑supremacist tattoos and related expert testimony; the district court denied both motions.
A jury convicted Diggins on all counts; he appealed raising (1) a constitutional challenge to § 249(a)(1) under the Thirteenth Amendment, (2) a challenge to the certification under § 249(b)(1), and (3) a challenge to admission of tattoo/expert evidence (the latter was not developed on appeal and was deemed waived).

Issues

Issue	United States' Argument	Diggins' Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1) under § 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment	§ 249(a)(1) is an "appropriate" exercise of § 2 authority and meets Jones’s rational‑determination test because racially motivated violence is a badge/incident of slavery.	Jones’s rational‑determination test is overbroad or undermined by later cases; § 249(a)(1) exceeds Congress’s § 2 power or is unconstitutional as applied.	Court affirmed § 249(a)(1) as constitutional under Jones; racially motivated violence rationally relates to badges/incidents of slavery.
Effect of City of Boerne and Shelby County on Jones's standard	Boerne and Shelby apply to Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendment contexts and do not displace Jones; § 249(a)(1) does not raise the same federalism concerns.	Boerne and Shelby erode Jones; similar federalism concerns should limit § 2 power here.	Rejected: Boerne/Shelby do not overrule Jones; § 249(a)(1) is congruent, proportional, and does not unduly intrude on state authority.
Reviewability and adequacy of the § 249(b)(1) certification	Certification is an executive prosecutorial decision not subject to judicial review; § 249(b) contains no standards for review.	The certification was deficient and should be judicially reviewable (or required explanation).	Certification under § 249(b)(1) is an unreviewable exercise of prosecutorial discretion; Diggins’s challenge fails.
Admission of tattoos and expert testimony	Evidence and expert testimony were admissible to show motive and ideology.	Admission was erroneous (challenge not developed on appeal).	Waived: appellate brief failed to develop the claim, so argument is forfeited.

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (recognizes Congress’s § 2 power to legislate against "badges and incidents" of slavery under a rational‑determination standard)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (limits Congress’s enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment via congruence‑and‑proportionality analysis)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (2013 decision restricting certain extraordinary Voting Rights Act remedies and emphasizing current‑conditions justification)
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) (early discussion contrasting Thirteenth Amendment’s direct reach with Fourteenth Amendment remedial limits)
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (recognizes Congress may create private rights of action under Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power)
Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (applies § 2 power to prohibit racial discrimination in private contracts)
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989) (discusses scope of protections related to racial discrimination and § 2 enforcement history)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (recognizes unique harms from racially motivated violence)
United States v. Roof, 10 F.4th 314 (4th Cir. 2021) (recent circuit opinion applying Jones to uphold § 249 and noting judicial consensus)