The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Tuesday in *United States v. Zavala-Garcia*, addressing a constitutional challenge to federal immigration sentencing provisions that could affect thousands of similar cases nationwide.
Joel Zavala-Garcia appealed his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where Zavala-Garcia was prosecuted under the federal statute that criminalizes unlawful reentry by previously deported individuals.
At the heart of Zavala-Garcia's appeal was a constitutional challenge to the statutory sentencing enhancement provisions found in § 1326(b). These enhancements can significantly increase sentences for defendants with certain prior convictions, particularly those involving aggravated felonies or multiple immigration violations. The enhancement provisions have been a frequent target of constitutional challenges in recent years as defense attorneys argue they violate due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
Zavala-Garcia's legal strategy acknowledged the uphill battle he faced. His attorneys conceded that the argument against the sentencing enhancement is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's 1998 decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States*. In that case, the high court held that the fact of a prior deportation is a sentencing factor that judges may determine, rather than an element of the offense that must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The *Almendarez-Torres* precedent has remained controversial within legal circles. Critics argue that allowing judges rather than juries to make factual findings that dramatically increase sentences violates the Sixth Amendment principle established in later cases like *Apprendi v. New Jersey* and *Blakely v. Washington*. These decisions generally require that any fact increasing a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury.
Despite acknowledging that current precedent worked against him, Zavala-Garcia sought to preserve his constitutional argument for possible Supreme Court review. This preservation strategy reflects the ongoing debate over *Almendarez-Torres* and whether the Supreme Court might reconsider the decision in light of subsequent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.
The three-judge panel hearing the case consisted of Circuit Judges Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez. The court issued a per curiam opinion, indicating unanimous agreement among the panel members. Such opinions are typically used for straightforward cases where the legal principles are well-established.
The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file additional briefing. Summary affirmance procedures allow appeals courts to dispose of cases quickly when the legal issues are clearly resolved by existing precedent. The fact that the motion was unopposed suggests that even Zavala-Garcia's counsel recognized the strength of the Government's position under current law.
Section 1326 prosecutions represent a significant portion of federal criminal cases, particularly in border districts. The statute makes it a felony for any individual who has been previously deported or excluded to enter, attempt to enter, or be found in the United States without proper authorization. Base sentences under the statute can reach two years in prison, but the enhancement provisions in subsection (b) can increase maximum penalties to 20 years for defendants with certain prior convictions.
The constitutional challenges to § 1326(b) enhancements have created a circuit split, with some courts expressing skepticism about the continued vitality of *Almendarez-Torres* while others, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, continue to apply it faithfully. This divide has led to calls for Supreme Court intervention to clarify the law.
The Fifth Circuit's handling of the *Zavala-Garcia* case demonstrates the court's adherence to established precedent even as legal scholars and some judges question whether *Almendarez-Torres* remains good law. The decision reflects the circuit's traditional approach to immigration enforcement issues, generally upholding prosecutorial tools and statutory provisions designed to deter illegal reentry.
For immigration attorneys and their clients, the ruling serves as a reminder of the challenging landscape facing constitutional challenges to immigration sentencing provisions. While some courts have shown willingness to limit *Almendarez-Torres*, the Fifth Circuit appears committed to following Supreme Court precedent until explicitly overruled.
The case number 25-10895 was processed on the court's summary calendar, indicating it was considered relatively routine despite the constitutional issues raised. The opinion was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, limiting its precedential value while still providing guidance on how the circuit approaches these challenges.
As immigration enforcement continues to be a priority in federal criminal justice, cases like *Zavala-Garcia* highlight the ongoing tension between prosecutorial efficiency and constitutional protections for defendants facing enhanced sentences based on prior judicial findings rather than jury verdicts.