No. 23-7846

Yair Ramirez-Aguilar v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arlington-heights-framework civil-rights due-process equal-protection legislative-intent racial-discrimination racist-origins statutory-interpretation village-of-arlington-heights
Key Terms:
DueProcess Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a legislature can cleanse the taint of a racially discriminatory law by silent reenactment or amendment when the law was originally adopted for an impermissible discriminatory purpose

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The government prosecuted Petitioners under a statute with undisputed racist origins. Congress criminalized illegal entry, as well as illegal reentry, into the United States in 1929 at the urging of “proud” white supremacists, nativists, and eugenicists to keep the American bloodline “white and purely Caucasian.” The core focus of these provisions has remained substantively the same since 1929. But the Ninth Circuit upheld the law based on a reenactment in 1952 and amendments in the 1980s and 1990s, none of which grappled with the law’s racist past. This case poses important questions about the role of appellate courts in applying the framework from Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), to a federal law used for a large swath of federal criminal prosecutions, along with countless civil rights cases. The question presented is: Whether a legislature can cleanse the taint of a racially discriminatory law by silent reenactment or amendment when the law was originally adopted for an impermissible discriminatory purpose. prefix PARTIES,

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-11
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-07-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 1, 2024)

Attorneys

United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Yair Ramirez-Aguilar, et al.
Paul A. BarrFederal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
Paul A. BarrFederal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner