As of right now, immigration cases use the Esquivel-Quintana standard exposure to statutory penalty for "any 1' prior felony of "sexual abuse of a minor" (nullified if based on a broader age-group). But Child Pornography cases use unsettled split decisions below that overwhelmingly enhance for the same or similar prior conviction by eschewing the age-based metric for the. "related to" modifier.

"Whethera)equal asks , protection of the liberty interest is offended when two classes of criminal defendants (Immigration and Child Pornography) are given disparate treatment under due process," where ...therefore Petitioner

Both defendants have the. same or similarly situated prior state-court statutory rape conviction;

Each defendant is exposed to a mandatory federal baseline enhancement that does not define "sexual abuse of a minor" in that enhancement's chapter in the criminal code; but

The Immigration defendant walks free, and the child pornography defendant gets a 10-year mandatory minimum enhancement?

Whether equal protection of the liberty interest is offended when two classes of criminal defendants (Immigration and Child Pornography) are given disparate treatment under due process