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).

And the definition does not violate equal protection because it is not irrational to base a child's dependency on age and marital status. See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Congress rationally could have determined that older children and married children are sufficiently independent that they do not require preferential treatment.

The veracity of this claim is undermined by the fact that Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that their site plans are subject to regulation under the Act. See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Because Petitioner has engaged in conduct that is clearly covered, he 'cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.'" (quoting Holder, 561 U.S. at 19)).

The veracity of this claim is undermined by the fact that Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that their site plans are subject to regulation under the Act. See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Because Petitioner has engaged in conduct that is clearly covered, he 'cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.'" (quoting Holder, 561 U.S. at 19)).

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)

We review de novo the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the BIA. See Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). ANALYSIS

"The ordinary meaning of 'habitual drunkard' is a person who regularly drinks alcoholic beverages to excess." Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

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