Federal judge pledges quick ruling on Iowa immigration law

DES MOINES — Leaning on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, lawyers for Iowa immigrants argued in federal court Monday that a new state immigration law is unconstitutional and should never go into effect.

A lawyer for the state, however, argued the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to this case and that states have a sovereign right to enforce laws within their borders.

The arguments were made Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa during a hearing on a new state law, which would make it illegal for individuals to be in Iowa after they previously entered the country illegally or were deported. State and local officials could enforce the law, including by deporting migrants who violate it.

A similar law in Texas also is facing a legal challenge.

Christopher Eiswerth, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, and Emma Winger, deputy legal director for the American Immigration Council, argued Iowa’s law is unconstitutional because Congress has made the federal government — not the states — the official executor of immigration policy. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that in the 2012 case United States v. Arizona, they said.

In that case, the court ruled that the federal government has significant power to regulate immigration and that even if states have problems and frustrations with federal immigration enforcement, states may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

That was the argument made Monday by attorneys for plaintiffs in the Iowa case: the federal government and the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice on behalf of four anonymous Iowa immigrants who the group says would be subject to deportation.

The Iowa law “gives state officers discretion that Congress gave to federal officers,” Eiswerth said during the hearing.

The plaintiffs are asking the courts to determine the Iowa law is unconstitutional and block it from taking effect.

Iowa Attorney General makes its case

Patrick Valencia, a deputy solicitor general in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, argued the 2012 ruling does not directly apply because the Iowa law does not preempt federal law — rather, it authorizes state and local officials to enforce the immigration law.

Winger pushed back on that argument later when talking to reporters.

“The state is attempting to rewrite the law the Legislature passed in an effort to save it,” Winger said. “They’re faced with a plainly preempted law, and they’re trying to fix it now and they just can’t do that.”

Valencia told the judge that immigration and human trafficking are crises that have “deeply affected Iowa” and that the Iowa law would allow state and local law enforcement to “reject” immigrants who are in the state illegally.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird did not attend the hearing, but issued a statement.

“Since (President Joe) Biden refuses to enforce our immigration laws, Iowa is doing the job for him,” Bird’s statement said. “Biden’s open borders have not only caused record illegal immigration, but they have opened the door for drug cartels, human traffickers, and suspected terrorists to enter our country.

“Today, we made the case in court defending Iowa’s law that prohibits illegal reentry and keeps our communities safe. If Biden invested half as much energy into securing our borders as he does suing states like Iowa we would all be better off.”

As Iowa Attorney General, Bird has sued the Biden administration at least 18 times in 18 months.

Ruling expected soon, before law’s effective date

At the conclusion of the roughly 90-minute hearing, Judge Stephen Locher pledged to issue his ruling soon and well ahead of the July 1 date the law is set to go into effect.

Locher said he expects his ruling will be appealed. “I’m well aware I’m probably the first stop on this journey,” Locher said.

Advocates rally outside courthouse

Roughly 150 demonstrators with the Eastern Iowa advocacy group Escucha Mi Voz gathered Monday outside the federal courthouse in Des Moines’ East Village to rally against the law. The group featured priests, nuns, immigrant workers and “everyday people of faith,” according to organizers.

“Our message to Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird is, ‘Stop defending this unconstitutional, anti-God law,’” Father Nils Hernandez of Queen of Peace Catholic Church in Waterloo said in a statement.

How the Iowa law was created

The law, Senate File 2340, passed the Iowa Legislature with mostly Republican support, and Gov. Kim Reynolds signed it into law April 10.

Statehouse Republicans have acknowledged there are some unanswered questions as to how the law would be implemented, but insisted action was needed because in their view the Biden administration has not sufficiently enforced federal immigration laws.

“The Biden Administration has failed to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, putting the protection and safety of Iowans at risk,” Reynolds said in a statement when she signed the bill into law. “Those who come into our country illegally have broken the law, yet Biden refuses to deport them. This bill gives Iowa law enforcement the power to do what he is unwilling to do: enforce immigration laws already on the books.”

Shortly after Reynolds signed the bill into law, the federal government stated its intention to file a lawsuit to block it.

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com