98 F.4th 90
4th Cir.2024Background
- Six non-citizen defendants were indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegally reentering the United States after being deported or removed.
- The defendants moved to dismiss their indictments, claiming § 1326 is unconstitutional because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose targeting Mexican and Central American immigrants.
- Defendants relied heavily on the argument that § 1326's predecessor, the 1929 Act, was enacted with racial animus, and that this animus was carried forward into § 1326 in 1952.
- The district court consolidated the cases, held an evidentiary hearing, and denied the motions to dismiss, finding insufficient evidence that § 1326 was adopted for discriminatory reasons.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error and the constitutional challenge de novo.
- The court affirmed the district court, joining the consensus across other federal courts of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Defendants' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1326 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fifth Amendment | Enactment of the 1929 Act was racially motivated; § 1326 continues that discriminatory intent since Congress never repudiated it | The 1952 statute was enacted much later, by a different Congress, with other stated legislative purposes; presumption of good faith applies | No clear error; insufficient evidence that the 1952 Congress acted with discriminatory intent |
| Applicability of Arlington Heights framework vs. rational basis review to § 1326 | Arlington Heights (heightened scrutiny based on discriminatory purpose) should apply | Immigration laws often get rational basis review due to congressional plenary power | The court does not resolve the standard, as defendants' claims fail even under Arlington Heights |
| Weight of the 1929 Act's discriminatory origins in assessing § 1326 | The racial animus behind the 1929 Act taints § 1326 absent explicit repudiation | Past animus cannot automatically be imputed to a later Congress; multiple substantive changes separate § 1326 from the 1929 Act | The history of the 1929 Act is relevant but not sufficient to overcome presumption of legislative good faith in 1952 |
| Impact of disparate effect on Mexican and Central American immigrants | Large disparate impact is evidence of discriminatory intent | The disparity is explained by geographic proximity, not racial motivation | Disparate impact evidence is insufficient, absent proof it is unexplained by neutral grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (standards for proving discriminatory legislative intent)
- United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2023) (rejection of equal protection challenge to § 1326; extensive analysis of legislative history)
- N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (use of clear error standard for factual findings on discriminatory intent)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (evidence of disparate impact in equal protection analyses)
- Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (burden of proof and legislative good faith after past discrimination)