Whether a law originally enacted with a discriminatory purpose can be cured of an equal protection violation by subsequent amendments or reenactments that do not address the original discriminatory intent

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner is a citizen of E] Salvador who was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, 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. Particularly, he argued that the law was originally enacted with a discriminatory purpose as part of the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 and continues to have a disparate impact on Latinos.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 disregard the original discriminatory animus and look only to the most recent enactment of the challenged provision to determine its constitutionality. The questions presented is: 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? 1