No. 24-5548

Gustavo Lazcano-Neria v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-09-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights discriminatory-purpose equal-protection legislative-intent racist-statute statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-10-11
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 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

2024-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-09-11

Attorneys

Gustavo Lazcano-Neria
Paul A. BarrFederal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
Paul A. BarrFederal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent