United States v. Carrillo-Lopez

To establish discriminatory purpose for a facially neutral statute, the proponent must show a preponderance of evidence that “the lawmaking body . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” See Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).

Appellee was indicted for illegally reentering the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court held that the statute violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment because it was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. U.S. Const. amend. V. On appeal, Appellee argues the legislative history of section 1326 is filled with racism towards Latino immigrants, confirmed by the President’s statements upon veto and the Department of Justice’s use of a racial slur in a letter regarding the proposed statute. To establish discriminatory purpose for a facially neutral statute, the proponent must show a preponderance of evidence that “the lawmaking body . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” See Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979) (emphasis added). The Court held that Appellee did not overcome the “presumption of good faith” imputed to lawmakers; the legislative history in context provides only factual descriptions, without racist or derogatory language, of Latin people. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). Further, the President’s statements do not evidence Congress’ intent. See United States v. Barcenas-Rumualdo, 53 F.4th 859, 867 (5th Cir. 2022). Similarly, the DOJ’s letter provides no evidence of Congress’ intent, as it recommended only clarifying language. Reversed and remanded.