would have fair notice" from the statute that Petitioner faces expedited removal to his native country pursuant to § 1228(b)(1). Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

See Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h). The distinction made by the California Legislature between individuals who must serve their sentences in county jail as opposed to state prison bears a rational relationship to its legitimate government interests in improving public safety (and health) by avoiding overcrowded state prisons while also saving taxpayer money. See e.g. Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating the government has a legitimate interest in public safety). For his part, Petitioner has failed “to negative” these conceivable bases for the distinction and therefore fails to show an equal protection violation. See Armour, 566 U.S. at 681; see also Mason v. Holt, 2016 WL 6136076, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2016)

021) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (clinical determinations by professional organizations including the American Psychological Association were “powerful evidence of medical consensus” on definition of intellectual disability); United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309-10 (1998) (citing “polarization” within the scientific community and disagreement among state and federal courts as evidence of “lack of scientific consensus” on efficacy of polygraphs); S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 985 F.3d 1128, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 141 S.Ct. 2563 (2021) (citing public health framework published by State of California concerning COVID-19 masking, social distancing, and activity restrictions as representative of “scientific consensus”); Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 769 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing an international professional organization's official standards of care as representative of scientific consensus on healthcare for transgender people); Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing determinations by American Medical Association and U.S. Surgeon General as reflecting “medical consensus”); Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Pritzker, 840 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir. 2016) (federal agency's consultation of “the best available research” was evidence of “scientific consensus” on climate change-related issue); Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), rev'd sub nom. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (“By medical consensus, we do not mean unanimity or that no single doctor disagrees, but rather that there is no significant disagreement within the medical community.”);

We review de novo whether the statute is constitutional. Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 1042, 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Marquez-Reyes does not argue that he engaged in constitutionally protected speech, such that applying the statute to him would violate the First Amendment.

Because Petitioner's equal protection fails under the ordinary rational basis test, this case provides no reason to question that longstanding approach.” 857 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Six years

The Court also notes, without firmly deciding the question at this time, that the equal protection claim would likely be subject to rational basis review. SeeLedezma-Cosino v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017).

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 326 (1980). See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017); Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We review equal protection challenges to federal immigration laws under the rational basis standard . . . ."). "A legislative classification must be wholly irrational to violate equal protection."