United States v. Novondo-Ceballos, 554 F.Supp.3d 1114

Defendant Ricardo Antonio Novondo‑Ceballos was encountered by Border Patrol in Doña Ana County, NM on Dec. 16, 2020; he is a Honduran national and had been deported in 2008 after an aggravated‑felony conviction.
He is charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and moved to dismiss the indictment on equal‑protection grounds.
Defendant argues § 1326 inheres racial animus because it traces to the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 (UAA) and disproportionately impacts Latinos, so strict scrutiny/Arlington Heights analysis should apply.
The Government contends immigration statutes receive deferential (rational‑basis) review under Congress’s plenary immigration power and § 1326 is rationally related to legitimate enforcement interests.
The court acknowledged the UAA’s racist origins but held those origins do not change the appropriate standard; it applied rational‑basis review, found § 1326 rationally related to immigration enforcement, rejected Arlington Heights analysis, and denied the motion to dismiss.
The court also denied an evidentiary hearing as the legal framework (rational‑basis review) disposes of the motion and historical evidence would not alter the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper equal‑protection standard for a constitutional challenge to § 1326	Apply rational‑basis review because Congress has plenary power to regulate immigration	Apply strict scrutiny under Arlington Heights because the statute has racially discriminatory origins and disparate impact	Court applied rational‑basis review (deferential standard)
Whether the UAA’s racist legislative history renders § 1326 presumptively unconstitutional	Congress subsequently reenacted and amended immigration law (INA amendments) which purge the prior taint; later enactments supply a neutral basis	The original enactment was motivated by racism/eugenics and that motive remains relevant to the statute’s constitutionality	Court rejected defendant’s reliance on origins; found later statutory developments cleanse the taint and prior intent is not dispositive
Whether an evidentiary hearing is required to explore legislative intent/history	No—rational‑basis review controls; documents in the record suffice and the claim fails as a matter of law	Yes—wants expert testimony on UAA origins to prove discriminatory intent	Court denied hearing as unnecessary because legal standard disposes of the motion and the historical record would not change the outcome

Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory purpose in facially neutral laws)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (discussed origins of state rules but did not base remedy solely on historical motive)
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) (addressed Free Exercise; noted debate about relevance of historical origins)
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (federal immigration classifications get deferential review)
Soskin v. Reinertson, 353 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2003) (federal immigration legislation is reviewed under rational‑basis review)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (burden on challenger to negate every conceivable rational basis)
United States v. Hernandez‑Guerrero, 147 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1998) (§ 1326 is a regulatory statute rationally related to controlling unlawful immigration)