反歧视法理学:美国诉Carrillo-Lopez案

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
K. S. Jobe
{"title":"反歧视法理学:美国诉Carrillo-Lopez案","authors":"K. S. Jobe","doi":"10.1177/13582291221124489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":42250,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"404 - 411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-discrimination jurisprudence: US v. Carrillo-Lopez\",\"authors\":\"K. S. Jobe\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13582291221124489\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"404 - 411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221124489\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Discrimination and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221124489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021年8月,美国联邦地区法院裁定,将非法入境定为刑事犯罪的《移民归化法》第1326条违反了第五修正案的平等保护条款,因为它对墨西哥和拉丁裔个人产生了不同的影响和歧视意图。虽然§1326在许多其他联邦法院受到了质疑,但没有成功,US v.Carrillo Lopez案在对联邦法规歧视意图的解释上具有独创性。在本案评注中,将阐述本案的推理,然后分析在歧视意图学说背景下适用的独特法定解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anti-discrimination jurisprudence: US v. Carrillo-Lopez
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信