By Jonathan Ellett
FAIR

As anticipated, a federal judge for the Southern District of Iowa last week blocked Iowa’s newly enacted immigration enforcement law. District Judge Stephen Locher, appointed by President Biden, issued the preliminary injunction, reasoning, “As a matter of politics, the new legislation might be defensible. As a matter of constitutional law, it is not.”

Ever since the new law (formerly S.F. 2340) was signed by Governor Kim Reynolds, it has been ensnared in legal disputes. Two separate lawsuits were filed on May 9 challenging the law’s constitutionality.  First, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the

Sponsored
state of Iowa, asking the federal court to strike down the new statute based on the claim that it violates the Constitution’s Supremacy and Foreign Commerce clauses.  Another suit filed by the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice claims Iowa’s law sets up an independent state immigration scheme which “purports to give state officials broad powers to arrest, detain, and deport non-citizens in Iowa who reentered the U.S. after a previous removal or exclusion.”

In reality, the law is an effort by the State of Iowa to stem the wave of illegal immigration and violence at the U.S. southern border. S.F. 2340  creates a state crime of illegal immigration in Iowa.  It also prohibits the illegal reentry of any alien who was previously denied admission to the U.S. or had been excluded, deported or removed from the country or who departed from the U.S. while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding. Violations of this law are classified as aggravated misdemeanors but may be upgraded to felonies depending on the underlying reasons for the alien’s prior removal and/or exclusion. Upon conviction under the law, a judge must order the alien to return to the country from which s/he entered.

Judge Locher issued a temporary injunction accompanied by a twenty-five-page opinion agreeing with the DOJ and the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice. In his analysis of S.F. 2340, Locher focused on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally provides that federal laws take precedence over state laws. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States (2012), Judge Locher concluded that Congress had enacted a “pervasive regulatory framework” governing immigration that left no room for states to supplement it.

Sponsored

Equally untenable, according to Judge Locher, was the fact that under S.F. 2340, aliens with meritorious defenses to an illegal reentry charge are still subject to possible criminal sanction. Judge Locher maintained that the State of Iowa could still arrest an alien and put him in jail for something the U.S. had already given him permission to do.

Ultimately, Judge Locher determined that S.F. 2340 was preempted by federal immigration law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Based on his analysis, Locher held that the U.S. Department of Justice and the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice were likely to win on the merits of the case and enjoined Iowa from implementing the law.

In response to Judge Locher’s decision, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird vowed to continue her fight. Bird filed an appeal on June 20.  In a statement supporting the appeal, Bird promised that “Iowa won’t back down. Today, my office filed an appeal to defend Iowa’s immigration enforcement law that keeps Iowa families safe. We can’t afford to stand by any longer as Biden’s border crisis rolls out a welcome mat for drug cartels, human traffickers, and suspected terrorists to invade our home communities. If Biden won’t do his job to secure our borders, Iowa will.”

With appeals on similar state laws now pending before both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, it is likely this issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.  Stay tuned for updates from FAIR.