United States v. Rodriguez-Soto
| Decision Date | 21 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 4:22-CR-0018-SEG-WEJ |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ-SOTO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Non-Final Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendant Roberto Rodriguez-Soto's motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of equal protection. (Doc. 30.) Mr. Rodriguez-Soto has filed objections to the R&R.[1] (Doc. 35, 47.) On December 20, 2022 during a telephone conference with the parties, this Court overruled Defendant's objections and denied the motion to dismiss. The reasons for this ruling are stated below.
Mr Rodriguez-Soto, a citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident at the age of two in 1994. (Doc. 22 at 10-11; Doc. 28 at 1.) Many years later, he was removed from the United States (id. at 11) following conviction of a criminal offense. (Doc. 28 at 2-4.)
Mr. Rodriguez-Soto was indicted on May 24, 2022, on one count of illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). (Doc. 1.) On August 24, 2022, he filed a preliminary motion seeking to dismiss the indictment for violation of the equal protection guarantee of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 19.) He perfected that motion on September 1, 2022 (Doc. 22) and separately filed exhibits in support (Doc. 23).
Mr. Rodriguez-Soto argues that the statute under which he is charged, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment under the standard articulated in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hosing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). Defendant specifically argues that § 1326 is unconstitutional because (1) Congress enacted its predecessor, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 (“UAA”), out of racial animus toward Mexican and Latino immigrants, (2) more recent versions of the statute did not cleanse the law of its original taint, and (3) the statute has a disparate impact on Mexican and Latino persons. Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's challenge to § 1326 is one of many similar challenges that people charged with this offense have filed across the United States following the decision by a court in the District of Nevada in United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 555 F.Supp.3d 996 (D. Nev. 2021). The Government has filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 27.)
The Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 30.) The Magistrate Judge notes that numerous courts have rejected the argument presented by Mr. Rodriguez-Soto. In his objection, Mr. Rodriguez-Soto asserts that those cases were incorrectly decided. He urges the Court to apply strict scrutiny and follow the sole case he cites in support of his position. (Doc. 35 at 1-2.)
Having carefully considered the parties' arguments and supporting materials, as well as the reasoning in Carrillo-Lopez and the cases that have declined to follow it, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 30) and DENIES Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's motion to dismiss the indictment. (Doc. 19, 22.) See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Lopez, 583 F.Supp.3d 815, 818 (S.D. Tex. 2022) ()
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Defendant has timely and specifically objected. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). For a party's objections to warrant de novo review, he "must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that [he] disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009). Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Those portions of the R&R for which there are no objections will be assessed for clear error only. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1373 (N.D.Ga. 2006) () (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Mr. Rodriguez-Soto asserts that the Court should apply the equal protection framework in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), to § 1326 and hold that the statute violates equal protection. He cites to one case in support of his position: United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 555 F.Supp.3d 996 (D. Nev. 2021). There, the defendant presented an argument that is practically identical to Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's. The Nevada court granted that defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the statute was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and did have a disparate impact on Mexican and Latino individuals.
In contrast, the Government presents a list of twenty-four district court decisions that have rejected the same arguments Mr. Rodriguez-Soto makes here.[2] (Doc. 27 at 3 n.5.) In addition to the twenty-four cases cited by the Government, the Court is aware of several other district court cases that have been decided similarly. See, e.g., United States v. Vera, No. 1:22-cr-00043-JL, 2022 WL 3716503 (D. N.H. Aug. 29, 2022); United States v. Lopez- Segura, No. CR-22-00196-PRW, 2022 WL 4084438 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 6, 2022); United States v. Leonides-Seguria, No. 21CR 390, 2022 WL 4273176 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2022); United States v. Paredes-Medina, No. 2:21-cr-00323-CDS-DJA, 2022 WL 7683738 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2022). Although these courts have been split about whether to apply the Arlington Heights approach or the rational basis test, they have all declined to find § 1326 unconstitutional.
In a recent case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that this equal protection challenge “fails under either standard.” United States v. Barcenas-Rumualdo, 53 F.4th 859, 865 (5th Cir. 2022). While rational basis review may apply in this Circuit,[3] this Court likewise finds that Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's challenge cannot succeed under either standard.
Defendant's challenge to the statute cannot succeed under rational basis review. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that under the rational basis test, a law does not violate equal protection “so long as [it is] rationally related to a legitimate government interest.” United States v. Ferreira, 275 F.3d 1020, 1025 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Mr. Rodriguez-Soto makes no argument that § 1326 is not supported by a rational basis, instead focusing on the application of Arlington Heights. He thus fails to meet his burden to show that § 1326 does not satisfy rational-basis review.
Next, turning to the Arlington Heights standard, the Supreme Court has held that a facially neutral statute can violate equal protection principles if it has a racially disproportionate impact. 429 U.S. at 265-66. To show that a statute violates equal protection, a litigant must prove that the statute was enacted for a discriminatory purpose or intent and that it has a disparate impact. See id. The burden then shifts to the government to show it would have enacted the law without the discriminatory purpose. See id. at 264-65 ().[4] Mr. Rodriguez-Soto asks the Court to find that § 1326 has a disparate impact on Mexican and other Latino defendants. (Doc. 22 at 37.) The statistical evidence he cites certainly supports his claim. For example, according to the United States Sentencing Commission, in fiscal year 2020, Hispanic persons constituted 99.1% of persons prosecuted under the illegal reentry statute.[5] And in fiscal year 2021, Hispanic persons constituted 99% of persons prosecuted under the illegal reentry statute.[6]
The Government does not dispute that most prosecutions for illegal reentry are against persons from Mexico and Latin America. It argues, instead, that the disproportionate prosecutions of such individuals are a consequence of geographical proximity and other political, economic, and social factors. (Doc. 27 at 19.)
That geographical, political, and other factors may contribute to the disparity is really beside the point, at least on the question of impact. On that question, we consider whether the statute “bears more heavily on one race than another.” Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for State of Alabama, 992 F.3d 1299, 1321 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266). Here, the undisputed statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission suggest that the statute in question does bear more heavily on one race than another. Further, “[t]hat an innocent explanation may exist for the disparity does not eliminate the disparity.” United States v. Machic-Xiap, 552 F.Supp.3d 1055, 1072 (D. Or. 2021). The Court thus agrees with Mr. Rodriguez-Soto that § 1326...
To continue reading
Request your trial