Does 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violate the equal-protection guarantee of the Fifth-Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner is a Mexican citizen charged with illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In the district court and again on appeal, he argued that § 1326 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The original illegal reentry law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose as part of the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 and continues to have a disparate impact on Latinos. The Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance based on its precedent requiring a court to ignore the original discriminatory animus and look only to the most recent enactment of the challenged provision to determine its constitutionality. The questions presented are: 1. When a law is originally adopted for an impermissible racially discriminatory purpose and continues to have a disparate impact, do subsequent amendments or reenactments cure any equal protection violation even if they do not address the original discriminatory intent? 2. Does 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment? ii No. In the Supreme Court of the United States AMBROSIO NOLASCO-ARIZA, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Ambrosio Nolasco-Ariza asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 3, 2023.