Must a court considering the reenactment of a provision that was originally adopted for a racially discriminatory purpose give meaningful consideration to the provision's racist origins, and consider proof of racial animus at the time of the reenactment through that lens?

No question identified. : QUESTI ON PRES ENTED Mr. Sa nche z-Felix a nd Mr. Q uintanilla -Doming uez were pros ecuted under 8 U .S.C. § 1 326, a statute used in al most a fif th of a ll federa l crimina l cases. Origina lly a dopted in 1 929, this illega l-reen try sta tute, who se focus is still su bstantially the s ame, ha s undenia ble racist origins . The T enth Circu it rejected the c laim here tha t § 1326 violates th e Fifth A mendmen t because it h as a ra cially disc rimina tory pu rpos e. The c ourt did so, on th e authority of its decis ion in United Sta tes v . Ama dor-Boni lla, 102 F.4th 1150 (10th Cir. 2 024), whi ch ga ve little to no w eight to the ra cism tha t infec ted the provi sion when it w as first e nacted. Instea d, that decis ion he ld there was insu fficient s how ing of racially disc rimina tory pu rpos e in the 1 952 reena ctment of the pro vision, eve n thou gh there was pro of of sim ilar racism in conn ectio n with the b roader bill o f which § 1326 was a part. This petiti on ra ises the follo wing q uestion: Must a court cons idering the reena ctment of a provis ion tha t wa s origin ally adopted for a racially disc rimina tory pu rpos e give me aningfu l considera tion to the provis ion’s racist origin s, and cons ider proof of ra cial animus at the time o f the reen actment thro ugh tha t lens ? i LIST OF PART IES Petitione rs: Ca rlos Gua dalu pe San chez -Felix a nd Mig uel Qu intanilla Domingu ez Respondent: Un ited State s of Ameri ca STATEM ENT OF RELATED CASES In Mr. Sa nche z-Felix’ s case: Unite d States v. Sanc hez-Felix, No . 21-cr-0 0310-PAB (D . Colo .) Judgment en tered M ay 31, 2022 Unite d States v. Sanc hez-Felix, No . 22-1188 (10th Cir.) Judgment en tered Septemb er 16 , 2024 In Mr. Qu intanilla -Doming uez’s case: Unite d States v. Qu intanilla -Doming uez, No. 21 -cr-0 0406-RM (D. Colo .) (Judgment en tered Ju ne 24, 2022) Unite d States v. Qu intanilla -Doming uez, No . 22-1198 (10th Cir.) (Judgment en tered Septemb er 18 , 2024) ii TAB LE OF CONTENTS PAGE QUEST ION P RESENTED .i LIST OF P ART IES.ii STAT EMENT OF RELAT ED C ASES. .ii TABLE OF AUT HORIT IES. .v PRA YER. .1 OPINIONS BELOW. .1 JURISD ICTIO N.1 CON STITU TION AL PR OVISION INVOLVED. .3 STAT EMENT OF T HE CASE. .4 REASONS FO R GRAN TING T HE WRIT This Cour t should gr ant r eview to e nsure that cour ts pr oper ly conside r racial ani mus in the origina l ena ctment o f a statute when the statute has be en reenacted.8 CON CLUSION. .18 APPEND IX Doc uments in M r. Sanch ez-Felix’ s case: Decis ion o f the Un ited State s Court of Appe als for the Te nth Circu it in Unit ed States v. Sanc hez-Felix, 2 024 WL 4198648 (10th Cir. Sept. 16 , 2024).A1 iii Decis ion o f the Un ited State s Distric t Cou rt for the D istric t of Colorado denying motio n to dis miss .A2 Decis ion o f the Un ited State s Distric t Cou rt for the D istric t of Colorado denying recon sidera tion. .A22 Docu ments in M r. Qu intanilla -Doming uez’s case: Decis ion o f the Un ited State s Court of Appe als for the Te nth Circu it in Unit ed States v. Qu intanilla -Doming uez, 2024 WL 42 24251 (10th Cir. Sept. 18 , 2024).A27 Decis ion o f the Un ited State s Distric t Cou rt for the D istric t of Colorado denying motio n to dis miss .A28 iv TAB LE OF AUTHORI TIES Page CASES Abbott v. Pere z, 585 U.S. 57 9 (2018).7, 9, 10, 11 Almen darez -Torres v. U nited Stat es, 5 23 U.S. 22 4 (1998).17 Caspari v. Bohlen, 5 10 U.S. 38 3 (1994).2 Hun ter v. Underw ood, 4 71 U.S. 22 2 (1985).17 Ramos v. Loui siana, 590 U.S. 93 (2020).11 Unite d Nat. Ba nk of Wich ita, Kansas v. La mb, 3 37 U.S. 38 (1949).2 Unite d States v. Ama dor-Boni lla, 102 F.4th 1110 (10th Cir. 2 024).5, 6, 7, 1 0, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 Unite d States v. Barcen as-Rumualdo, 53 F.4th 859 (5th Cir. 2 022).16 Unite d States v. Ca rrilloLopez , 555 F. Supp. 3d 9 96 (D. Nev. 20 21), rev’d, 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2 023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 7 03 (2024).17 Unite d States v. Sanc hez-Feli