Reenacting discriminatory laws
Gomez v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Pedro Gomez argued that later reenactments of the federal illegal-reentry law, without addressing its racist origins, did not cure its discriminatory purpose; the Ninth Circuit upheld the law based on those reenactments.
- Who it affects
- The Ninth Circuit ruling remains in place in Gomez's case, but the Supreme Court did not endorse its reasoning.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear his case (denied review) and did not decide the legal question.
The Ninth Circuit kept the federal illegal-reentry law in place, relying on Congress's later decisions to pass it again.
Question presented
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?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.