The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the appeal of Jesus Herrera-Salazar, a Mexican national whose case raised questions about double jeopardy in immigration prosecutions. The decision followed two federal indictments for illegal re-entry after deportation, with Herrera-Salazar serving a 15-month prison sentence in 2021 before being deported.
Herrera-Salazar’s legal challenge centered on whether his 2024 conviction for illegal re-entry violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits prosecuting an individual twice for the same offense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit previously ruled against him, stating that his 2020 and 2024 arrests constituted separate offenses under federal law. The Supreme Court’s denial of his appeal leaves the lower court’s ruling in place.
Herrera-Salazar was first deported in 2015, re-entered the U.S. in 2020, and was charged with illegal re-entry. After serving his sentence, he was released in 2021 and relocated to Oklahoma, where his family resided. A probation officer instructed him to remain in eastern Oklahoma until his supervised release period concluded. In 2022, he was pulled over by police, arrested again for illegal re-entry, and ultimately convicted in 2024. Following his second conviction, he was deported.
Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch issued a joint statement expressing concerns about the case’s constitutional implications. Sotomayor, writing for the two justices, noted that Herrera-Salazar’s second prosecution appeared to conflict with the Double Jeopardy Clause, which bars repeated prosecutions for the same offense after conviction. The justices acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal but emphasized that the case raised serious constitutional questions.
The federal government’s position, as reflected in the 10th Circuit’s ruling, maintains that Herrera-Salazar’s two arrests were distinct offenses because they occurred after separate deportations. The government argued that the statute criminalizing illegal re-entry after deportation does not violate double jeopardy principles, as each re-entry constitutes a new violation.
Herrera-Salazar’s case has drawn attention from legal scholars and advocacy groups, with some arguing that the prosecution sets a precedent that could lead to repeated prosecutions for the same underlying conduct. Others contend that the federal government has a legitimate interest in enforcing immigration laws and that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not shield individuals from prosecution for separate violations of federal law.