552 F.Supp.3d 1055
D. Or.2021Background
- Defendant Augustin Machic‑Xiap, a Guatemalan national, was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for unlawful reentry and moved to dismiss, arguing § 1326 violates equal protection (Fifth Amendment) because it was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and has a disparate impact on Latin Americans.
- Illegal reentry was first criminalized by the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929; § 1326 was enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1952 with only modest textual changes and was reauthorized later.
- The record and expert testimony show pervasive racialized discourse in early 20th‑century immigration law (eugenics influence, racialized legislative debate) and use of epithets (e.g., “wetback”) around the INA’s passage.
- Statistical evidence shows a stark disparate impact: the Government prosecuted overwhelmingly persons from Latin America (e.g., 98% in 2010; historical prosecutions similarly disproportionate).
- The Court applied Arlington Heights factors, concluding disparate impact and historical evidence are strong but plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden of proving that the 1952 Congress (as a whole) was motivated by racial animus in enacting § 1326.
- Holding: The Court denied the motion to dismiss; disparate impact and racist history alone did not prove that § 1326 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose sufficient to invalidate the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Machic‑Xiap's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1326 violates equal protection because Congress enacted it with racial animus | §1326 is a continuation of racially motivated laws (1929 Act → INA); legislative history and disparate impact show discriminatory purpose | Courts must defer in immigration matters; at most apply rational‑basis review and not probe congressional motive | Denied relief: Arlington Heights requires proof Congress as a body was motivated by animus; plaintiff did not carry burden |
| Whether courts may scrutinize congressional motive in immigration criminal statutes | Court can assess Fifth Amendment equal protection claims for noncitizens present in U.S.; motive inquiry appropriate | Immigration admission/exclusion decisions warrant exceptional deference | Court held motive inquiry is permitted here because defendant is present and faces imprisonment (Zadvydas/Mathews distinguish admission cases) |
| Whether disparate impact alone can invalidate a facially neutral law | Disparate impact on Latin Americans (statistical evidence) indicates discriminatory purpose | Disparate impact may have benign explanations (proximity, migration patterns) and is insufficient alone | Disparate impact is relevant but not dispositive; must be coupled with evidence of discriminatory purpose |
| Whether discriminatory motive of 1929 Act imputes to 1952 INA §1326 (silent reenactment argument) | Because §1326 changed little from 1929 Act, earlier discriminatory intent should be attributed to INA enactment | Past legislature’s motives do not automatically bind later Congress; courts should not infer earlier motives control later enactments | Court refused to impute 1929 motives to 1952 Congress absent stronger evidence; earlier discrimination is relevant background but not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory purpose for facially neutral laws)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (caution against attributing a few legislators’ motives to the whole legislature)
- Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (invalidating a provision where discriminatory intent was proven)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (disparate impact alone does not establish unconstitutional discrimination)
- Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (presumption of legislative good faith; limits on imputing past discrimination)
- Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) (consideration of legislative history and limited probative value of single legislator’s motive)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (noncitizens present in U.S. retain Fifth Amendment protections)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (race‑based classifications receive strict scrutiny)