Granillo v. United States of America

Posted on February 11, 2022 by josephcmeyers

Granillo v. United States of America, No. 2:21-cv-00777 (D.N.M., filed Aug. 18, 2021)

Anastacio Granillo is a 64-year-old man who was assaulted by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the Columbus Port of Entry while returning home from visiting family in Mexico in June 2019. On June 18, 2019, Mr. Granillo arrived at the Columbus Port of Entry with his wife’s cousin. At passport check, Mr. Granillo suggested to CBP Officer Oscar Orrantia that it would be helpful to open up another lane to allow for faster processing of vehicles in the heat. The officer responded in an angry tone and stated that CBP officers could do whatever they wanted. The CBP officer then asked what Mr. Granillo was bringing into the United States. Mr. Granillo responded that he was bringing allergy medication that he purchased in Mexico. He attempted to hand the medication to the officer, but accidentally dropped it, and it landed in the officer’s hands. The officer accused Mr. Granillo of throwing the medication at him before forcing him out of his vehicle and slamming him against the wall of the vehicle inspection bay, causing him to hit his head, fall to the ground, and suffer multiple injuries. CBP then detained him without medical help for close to an hour, despite him having a large visible bump on his forehead.

Mr. Granillo filed a complaint in the District of New Mexico on August 18, 2021. He alleged Officer Orrantia used excessive and unnecessary force against him and illegally detained him. Mr. Granillo claims the following causes of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act: assault, battery, false arrest, and negligence. The government filed an answer to the complaint on October 22, 2021. The parties met on December 16, 2021, and filed a joint status report outlining their provisional discovery plan on January 3, 2022. Defendants attempted to stay discovery and release of a key piece of video evidence for six months. On March 8, 2022, the District Court denied the requested six-month stay and ordered release of the video on or before May 5, 2022. The court held a Rule 16 conference on May116, 2022. On July 6, 2022, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. The parties moved to vacate the scheduling order and deadlines on July 19, 2022, in order to finalize settlement discussions, and moved to dismiss the case on August 30, 2022.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer
● Joint Status Report

Counsel:
ACLU of New Mexico

Contact:
María Martínez Sánchez | msanchez@aclu-nm.org
Zoila Alvarez Hernández | zalvarez@aclu-nm.org
Rebecca Fae Sherman Sheff | rsheff@aclu-nm.org

Press:
ACLU Sues CBP for Excessive Force Against New Mexican Man at Columbus Port of Entry

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents

Posted on February 11, 2022 by josephcmeyers

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents, et al., No. 20-01339 (6th Cir., filed Apr 22, 2020); No. 2:17-cv-12969 (E.D. Mich,, filed Sept. 10, 2017)

In 2015, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped Anas Elhady, a naturalized citizen living in Michigan who was returning to the United States from Canada. CBP detained him for six hours at the Ambassador Bridge Facility, where officers left him in a freezing cold cell without his outerwear.

Mr. Elhady sued several CBP officers in September 2017, seeking monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On February 10, 2020, the district court granted motions for summary judgment for all of the defendants except one, Officer Blake Bradley. Bradley appealed to the Sixth Circuit. On November 19, 2021, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and held that this case presented a new Bivens context under Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 741 (2020), because it implicated national security and raised questions reserved for the political branches. The court of appeals rejected Mr. Elhady’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue on interlocutory appeal and that Bradley had waived the issue by failing to raise the availability of Bivens on appeal. The appeals court maintained that they held jurisdiction over the Bivens issue on interlocutory appeal because it was necessary to evaluate the defense of qualified immunity. On January 25, 2022, the Sixth Circuit denied Mr. Elhady’s petition for rehearing en banc. Mr. Elhady filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on May 25, 2022. On October 13, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Second Amended Complaint
● Motion to Dismiss
● Summary Judgment Order
● Defendant-Appellant’s Opening Brief
● Plaintiff-Appellee’s Opposition Brief
● Defendant-Appellant’s Supplemental Brief
● Plaintiff-Appellee’s Supplemental Brief
● Sixth Circuit Decision

Counsel:
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Contact:
Justin Sadowsky | jsadowsky@cair.com
Lena Masri | lmasri@cair.com
Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.com

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Posted on November 3, 2021 by NWIRP

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 20-2-01236-32 (Spokane Cnty. Sup. Ct., consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2021)

In April 2020, the Attorney General of Washington (Bob Ferguson) filed a lawsuit against Greyhound Lines challenging its practice of allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents on its buses to conduct warrantless and suspicionless immigration sweeps. Greyhound failed to warn customers of the sweeps, misrepresented its role in allowing the sweeps to occur on its buses, and subjected passengers to unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The case was set for trial on September 27, 2021.

On September 26, 2021, the parties filed a consent decree which requires Greyhound to pay $2.2 million and to enact a number of corporate reforms to end its unlawful conduct. For example, Greyhound must establish and implement a clear policy that denies CBP agents permission to board its buses without warrants or reasonable suspicion in the state of Washington. The Attorney General has stated that the $2.2 million will be used to provide restitution to those passengers who were detained, arrested, or deported as a result of the immigration sweeps on Greyhound buses. On March 31, 2022, the Washington Attorney General’s office closed the settlement claims process.

Documents:

Counsel: Lane Polozola, Yesica Hernandez, Brian J. Sutherland, and Emily C. Nelson (Washington State Attorney General’s Office)

Contact: Yesica Hernandez | Washington State Attorney General’s Office | civilrights@atg.wa.gov

Press: Greyhound Agrees to Pay $2.2 Million Over Immigration Sweeps on Buses

Villalobos et al. v. United States

Posted on November 3, 2021 by NWIRP

Villalobos et al. v. United States, No. 0:21-cv-02233 (D. Minn., filed Oct. 11, 2021)

Plaintiff Kerlin Sanchez Villalobos and her younger sister are suing the United States for the severe abuse and mistreatment they suffered while they were held in immigration custody. In June 2019, they entered the United States seeking safety from violence and persecution in Honduras, and were arrested by CBP agents. At the time, Kerlin was sixteen and her sister was fourteen. After their arrest, Kerlin and her sister were taken to a CBP detention facility in Clint, Texas and held there for nine days, after which they were forcibly separated and transferred to different group homes operated by Southwest Key Programs, Inc.

At the facility in Clint, Texas, CBP officers and government contractors mistreated Plaintiffs in a variety of ways, including physically assaulting them, depriving them of adequate food and water, denying them access to necessary medical care and medication, forcing them to watch the mistreatment of other children, and forcing them to care for younger children. Officers forced the girls to lift their shirts to be searched in a non-private setting, and threw away medicine one of the sisters brought with her to treat a recent injury. According to the siblings, officers ordered them to control the younger children who were crying because they were separated from their families. One of the sisters was injured by an officer who kicked her repeatedly. Additionally, the Clint facility was reported to have subpar sanitation for the number of children held there, and an MSNBC video from 2019 revealed children caged like animals. According to an ABC news report, staff had no training on caring for children.

In spite of initially assuring the sisters they would not be separated, officers traumatically separated the sisters without explanation and transported them to separate group homes. Despite prior reports of abuse at the Texas group homes where the sisters were held, the U.S. government has continued to place children there. In total, Kerlin spent twenty days in detention, and her sister spent twenty-nine days. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for negligence, negligent undertaking, battery, and assault under Texas law via the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in October 2021 and the United States answered in January 2022. After engaging in discovery, the parties reached a settlement, which was reviewed and approved by the court with regards to the minor plaintiff. The case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal by the parties.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al.

Posted on November 3, 2021 by NWIRP

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al., No. 1:21-cv-11571-IT (D. Mass., filed Sept. 24, 2021)

Plaintiffs Jane Doe and her two 10-year-old sons are citizens of Haiti who entered the United States in September 2021 to seek asylum. They were among the thousands of Haitians forced to remain for days under the Del Rio International Bridge. Later, Plaintiffs were transported to San Antonio, Texas to be processed for expulsion pursuant to Title 42. As of September 24, 2021, they remained in CBP custody, and their expulsion under Title 42 was believed to be imminent.

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that the U.S. government’s Title 42 expulsion policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 42, the Administrative Procedure Act, the U.S. Constitution (equal protection and due process), and the United States’ nonrefoulement duty under international law. Plaintiffs request, among other things, that the court enjoin their expulsion under Title 42 and order Defendants to process their asylum claims in accordance with the INA.

As of November 2021, the government released the clients into removal proceedings and paroled them. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed this case.

Documents:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint

Counsel: Amy Maldonado | Law Office of Amy Maldonado

Bridget Cambria | Cambria & Kline, P.C.

Susan B. Church | Demissie & Church

Contact: Amy Maldonado | 517-803-2870 | amy@amaldonadolaw.com

Goldhar v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

Posted on November 3, 2021 by NWIRP

Goldhar v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., No. 1:21-cv-23197-BB (S.D. Fla., filed Sept. 3, 2021)

Plaintiff Gaby Or Goldhar, a citizen of Israel, challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s wrongful cancellation of her B-2 visitor visa in 2019. When entering the United States through the Miami International Airport on July 15, 2019, a CBP officer cancelled Ms. Goldhar’s B-2 visa based on an erroneous determination that she had accrued unlawful presence during her prior visits to the United States and thus was inadmissible. Ultimately, CBP acknowledged its mistake and admitted Ms. Goldhar into the United States after waiving the visa requirement on a Form I-193. However, because the visa in her passport was physically invalidated, Ms. Goldhar has been unable to travel to the United States ever since. Although she was invited to apply for a replacement visa, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly restricted U.S. consular operations abroad, resulting in extremely long wait times for visa processing. Ms. Goldhar wishes to attend her grandson’s bar mitzvah in Florida in January 2022, but she likely will be unable to obtain a new B-2 visa by then.

Ms. Goldhar claims that CBP’s wrongful cancellation of her visa violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as it constituted agency action that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Among other things, she requests that the district court order CBP to “immediately take such correction action as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, reversing the cancellation of [her] B-2 visa” and “treating it as a valid entry document through its stated expiration date.”

On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an expedited motion for summary judgment. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and a response to the expedited motion in November. Parties reached a settlement on December 2, 2021 and the case was administratively closed.

Documents:

Complaint

Counsel: David Elliott Gluckman | McCandlish Holton PC

Tammy Jean Fox-Isicoff | Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff, P.A.

Contact: David Gluckman | 804-775-3826 | dgluckman@lawmh.com

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

Posted on November 3, 2021 by NWIRP

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., No. 1:21-cv-05016-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 8, 2021)

Plaintiff Akram Djumaev, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, commenced this action against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mr. Djumaev is a resident of Chicago and a citizen of Uzbekistan who has been a lawful permanent resident since 2013. In January 2016, he traveled to Uzbekistan for the purpose of visiting family and getting engaged. After going through the security checkpoint at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, four law enforcement agents approached him and interrogated him, specifically asking whether he knew anyone in Turkey, Syria, or Afghanistan. Without consent or warrant, the agents then searched and confiscated his smartphone without providing any reason for doing so. After an hour of questioning, Mr. Djumaev was allowed to board the plane to Uzbekistan. However, the agents did not return his smartphone to him. In fact, to date, they still have not done so.

When Mr. Djumaev attempted to return home to the United States in March 2016, the airline attendant at the airport informed him that he would not be able to board—presumably because he had been placed on the U.S. government’s “No Fly List.” That same day, Mr. Djumaev contacted the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and filed a Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) complaint with DHS shortly afterward.

Two months later, Mr. Djumaev was instructed to visit the embassy for an interview. When he arrived, he was taken to a windowless room and interrogated by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department agents. The agents allegedly stated that Mr. Djumaev was a “threat to the U.S.” without any explanation or justification for that claim. They also suggested—again, without providing any basis—that they knew he had terrorist affiliations and had been involved in criminal activity. The agents repeatedly coerced Mr. Djumaev to admit that he was guilty and threatened that he would be arrested and imprisoned upon returning to the United States. After about two hours of interrogation, the agents told him that he had only two choices: either return to the United States. and be imprisoned, or agree to sign a form stating that he would not return to the United States. The agents handed him a pre-filled Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. Although Mr. Djumaev had no desire whatsoever to relinquish his LPR status, he signed the form, believing that he had no other choice. During this process, the agents never informed Mr. Djumaev of his rights.

After that incident, Mr. Djumaev attempted twice to return to the United States, but he was denied boarding each time. Although LPRs placed on the No Fly List are eligible for a one-time waiver to return to the United States, the embassy has refused to issue such a waiver to Mr. Djumaev. Later, Mr. Djumaev retained counsel and challenged the validity of the I-407, but the government has not provided any response. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Djumaev has been unable to return to the United States for over five years and has suffered significant financial and emotional harms.

Mr. Djumaev’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by placing him on the No Fly List without adequate notice or opportunity to challenge the decision, as well as by coercing him to abandon his LPR status. The complaint further asserts that Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the INA (depriving him of LPR status and excluding him from the United States without charge or a removal hearing) and the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure of his smartphone and its private contents). Finally, Mr. Djumaev claims that Defendants’ actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law,” in violation of the APA. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and requests, among other things, that the district court issue an order voiding the improper I-407 form and directing Defendants to restore his LPR status. The parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to dismiss the case on January 24, 2023.

Documents:

Complaint

Counsel: Jamila Marjani Hall & Sharnell S. Simon | Jones Day, Atlanta
Ramzi Kassem & Naz Ahmad | Main Street Legal Services, Inc.

Khalid v. Garland, et al.

Posted on November 2, 2021 by NWIRP

Khalid v. Garland et al., No. 1:21-cv-02307-CRC (D.D.C., filed Aug. 31, 2021)

Plaintiff Saad Bin Khalid brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), claiming that the U.S. government has wrongfully placed him on its “No Fly List” which indefinitely bars him from flying to, from, or within the United States.

Mr. Khalid is a 27-year-old U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent. He was first designated by the U.S. government as a “known or suspected terrorist” in 2012, when he was still a minor. As a result, Mr. Khalid has been subject to multiple interrogations and intrusive searches by CBP and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers. He learned that he had been placed on the No Fly List in 2019, when he tried to return to the U.S. from Karachi, Pakistan, but was prohibited from boarding his flight. He has been unable to return to the U.S.—his home country—for nearly two years due to his placement on the No Fly List. Mr. Khalid claims that the U.S. government has failed to provide any reason or justification for placing him on the list, or a fair process for challenging that placement.

The complaint alleges violations of Mr. Khalid’s rights under the Fifth Amendment (substantive and procedural due process), the First Amendment (retaliation for refusing to acquiesce to interrogations), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (burden on his exercise of religion), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Khalid seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated his rights, as well as an injunction which, among other things, requires Defendants to remove Mr. Khalid from any watchlist or database that burdens his ability to enter the United States.

In January 2022, Defendants moved to suspend the complaint response deadline, which Plaintiff opposed. On February 2, 2022, the court granted Defendants a 90-day stay of proceedings. On May 5, 2022, the stay was lifted, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2022. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on July 13, 2022. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on September 13, 2022, which was denied on October 7, 2022. Defendants’ motion to dismiss remains pending.

Documents:

Counsel: Council on American-Islamic Relations

Contact: Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.com | 202-742-6420.

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States

Posted on November 2, 2021 by NWIRP

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., filed Apr. 6, 2021); 21-40618 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 20, 2021); 22-40367 (5th Cir., filed Jun. 23, 2020)

On April 6, 2021, the State of Texas and the State of Louisiana commenced this action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of interim immigration enforcement priorities outlined in two memoranda issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (dated Jan. 20, 2021) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (dated Feb. 18, 2021). Noting DHS’s limited resources and inability to respond to all immigration violations, those memos announced that the agency would prioritize enforcement against individuals who are purported to pose a threat to national security, individuals apprehended at or near the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, and individuals convicted of an “aggravated felony” and recently released from criminal detention. Texas and Louisiana argue that these enforcement priorities are unlawful because:

(1) They violate the mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), as well as § 1231(a)’s requirement that noncitizens with final orders of removal be detained during the removal period;
(2) They unconstitutionally direct executive officials not to enforce federal immigration laws, in contravention of Article II’s “Take Care” Clause;
(3) They constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
(4) DHS and ICE issued the interim enforcement priorities without following the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA; and
(5) The memos were issued without adherence to the notice and consultation requirements contained in DHS’s cooperation agreements with Texas and Louisiana.

On August 19, 2021, the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, concluding that the memos violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA. It thus enjoined the government from following the interim priorities outlined in the challenged memos. The U.S. government then sought an emergency stay pending appeal as well as a temporary administrative stay. The Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay and heard oral argument on the motion for emergency stay pending appeal.

On September 15, 2021, the Fifth Circuit published its decision granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. While staying much of the injunction, the Fifth Circuit left narrow portions of the order in place. Specifically, the court declined to stay the injunction only insofar as it restrained the Biden Administration from using the Priorities Memos to guide the discretion of immigration officials in deciding whether to release two specific categories of immigrants: (1) those subject to the mandatory provision under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1) against whom immigration officials have issued a detainer and (2) those with final removal orders and subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(2). The injunction is stayed pending appeal in all other respects.

On September 30, 2021, DHS completed its review of its policies and practices concerning immigration enforcement and issued a new memorandum establishing its revised enforcement priorities. The new guidance is set to become effective on November 29, 2021, thereby superseding the challenged interim priorities. In light of this development, the government filed a motion for abeyance on October 6, 2021, arguing that the case would likely become moot before the court reaches a decision on merits. The government requested that the court hold the case in abeyance until the new priorities go into effect, and also that the court stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of the motion.

Texas and Louisiana filed a response opposing the motion for abeyance as well as a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel had erred by misconstruing the relevant INA provisions and also by failing to evaluate whether the challenged memos violated the APA. The Fifth Circuit granted appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on February 11, 2022. In the district court proceedings, the States filed an amended complaint, alleging that DHS’s September 30 memorandum “suffers from the same legal infirmities” as its earlier memos. They also filed a motion to postpone the effective date of the recent memorandum, or, in the alternative, to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.

The district court case went to trial on February 23, 2022. After the bench trial and post-trial briefing, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order on June 10, 2022, finding the plaintiff states have proven their first four counts by a preponderance of the evidence, and finding that the states did not prove Count V with regard to lack of consultation of the individual states. The final judgment vacated the September 30, 2021, memorandum. The government filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on June 13, 2022. The Fifth Circuit denied a motion for stay pending appeal, and an application for a stay of judgment was filed with the Supreme Court on July 8, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the application for stay but construed the application as a petition for certiorari before judgment and granted the petition on July 21, 2022. The Fifth Circuit appeal was placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court case.

Documents:

Counsel: Brian M. Boynton, Jennifer B. Lowery, Sarah E. Harrington, H. Thomas Byron III, Michael Shih, and Sean Janda | U.S. Dep’t of Justice

Contact: Department of Justice

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez

Posted on August 30, 2021 by aclusdic

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr-00026 (D. Nev., filed June 25, 2020); 21-10233 (9th Cir., filed August 20, 2021)

On June 25, 2020, Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez was indicted on one count of being a deported noncitizen present in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) (Section 1326). On October 19, 2020, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez moved to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that Section 1326 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, the law is unconstitutional; as such, the Court must dismiss the indictment.

In his briefing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented extensive historical evidence about the racist origins of Section 1326, including how it was first enacted at the height of the eugenics movement and how the “Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929” was conceived, drafted, and enacted by white supremacists out of a belief that the “Mexican race” would destroy the racial purity of the United States and that Mexicans were “poisoning the American citizen.” Although the statute was recodified in 1952, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that the 1952 reenactment did not cleanse Section 1326 of its racist origins and was likewise motivated by discriminatory intent. Moreover, he argued that Section 1326 disproportionally impacts Mexican and Latinx defendants, given that the overwhelming number of Border Patrol arrests along the southern border are of Mexicans or people of Latinx origin.

On January 22, 2021, the Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss, and on February 2, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented the testimony of two experts. Professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez, an expert on policing in immigration and criminalization of migration, testified extensively on the racist origins of the 1929 act and that “the illegal re-entry provision of the 1929 law was intended to target Latinos.” Professor Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, an expert on political science, immigration policy, race, and public policy, testified to the historical link between the 1929 and 1952 codifications. Following the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez submitted a post-hearing brief outlining for the Court how the 1952 recodification of Section 1326 made illegal reentry penalties even harsher and expanded grounds for deportation, all with the knowledge of the law’s disparate impact and over a presidential veto calling out the bill’s racism. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez explained that the 1952 Congress did not reenact the illegal reentry provision despite its racist origins – it reenacted it because of them. In light of these facts, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued he had met his burden under the Arlington Heights test.

On August 18, 2021, the court issued an order granting Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s motion to dismiss, finding that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose, the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, and that because the government failed to show that Section 1326 would have been enacted absent racial animus, Section 1326 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As such, the court ordered the United States to dismiss Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s indictment and release him from federal custody.

On August 19, 2021, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on December 8, 2022, and a decision is still pending.

Documents:

Counsel: Federal Public Defender of Nevada

Contact: Lauren Gorman, Assistant Federal Public Defender | Lauren_Gorman@fd.org

Hold CBP Accountable

Stopping U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Abuse

Category Archives: All Cases

Granillo v. United States of America

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Villalobos et al. v. United States

Doe et al. v. Mayorkas et al.

Goldhar v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

Khalid v. Garland, et al.

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez