Case Commentary
International Journal of
Discrimination and the Law
2022, Vol. 22(4) 404–411
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13582291221124489
journals.sagepub.com/home/jdi
Anti-discrimination
jurisprudence: US v.
Carrillo-Lopez
Kevin Scott Jobe
Abstract
In August 2021, a U.S. Federal District Court ruled that §1326 of the Immigration
Naturalization Act (INA) which criminalizes illegal reentry violated the Equal Protection
clause of the Fifth Amendment because it has disparate impact upon and discriminatory
intent against Mexican and Latinx individuals. While §1326 has been unsuccessfully
challenged in numerous other federal courts, US v. Carrillo-Lopez stands out in its
originality of interpretation regarding the discriminatory intent of a federal statute. In this
case commentary, the reasoning of the case will be explicated, followed by an analysis of
the unique statutory interpretation applied within the context of discriminatory intent
doctrine.
Keywords
anti-discrimination, equal protection, immigration, intent
Introduction
In August 2021, a U.S. Federal District Court ruled that §1326 of the Immigration
Naturalization Act (INA) which criminalizes illegal reentry violated the Equal Protection
clause of the Fifth Amendment because it has disparate impact upon and discriminatory
intent against Mexican and Latinx individuals. While §1326 has been unsuccessfully
challenged in numerous other federal courts, US v. Carrillo-Lopez stands out in its
originality of interpretation regarding the discriminatory intent of a federal statute. In this
case commentary, the reasoning of the case will be explicated, followed by an analysis of
Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX, USA
Corresponding author:
Kevin Scott Jobe, Our Lady of the Lake University, 411 SW 24TH ST, San Antonio, TX 78207-4689, USA.
Email: ksjobe@ollusa.edu
