In a landmark decision which has attracted surprisingly little attention, a Nevada federal district judge, Miranda Du, has struck down an immigration law making re-entry to the US after deportation a felony. Her decision, issued on August 16 in the case of U.S. v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, held that the law was "enacted with a discriminatory purpose and that the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons."

She also held that the government failed to show that the law "would have been enacted absent racial animus."\

For a report on and link to the decision, see: Reuters:

Courts are beginning to admit that some immigration laws are racist

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/courts-are-beginning-admit-that-some-immigration-lws-are-racist-2021-08-23/

This decision raises the question whether there may be other immigration laws that could be open to attack on the grounds that enactment of those laws was motivated by "racial animus".

To give an example of a law that fortunately was never enacted or given a serious chance of passage, but was brimming with racial animosity, one could point to the so-called RAISE Act that was introduced in Congress by Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and (former Senator) David Perdue (R-Georgia) early in Donald Trump's term in the White House.

This bill would have replaced the entire current legal immigration system with a "point" system heavily skewed toward immigrants from Europe - in keeping with Trump's statement in January 2018 that he wanted only immigrants from "Countries like Norway" rather than "shithole" countries, i.e. nonwhite ones.

To be continued in Part 2 of this 2-part series.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law