Iowa’s state-level immigration law remains blocked after federal appeals court ruling

DES MOINES — A state law that would create a state-level immigration violation and require the removal of individuals found guilty remains blocked after a federal appeals court issued a ruling Wednesday.

Saying the state law conflicts with federal immigration laws, the three-member federal appeals court upheld a previous District Court ruling that issued a temporary injunction which blocks enforcement of the law.

Passed in 2024, the law would make it a state crime for an individual to enter or be found in Iowa if that individual has previously been denied admission to or been deported from the United States. The law also would require judges to order any individual found guilty of the crime to be returned to the country from which the person entered the U.S., regardless of any other immigration proceedings involving the individual.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis on Wednesday upheld a previous District Court ruling that placed a temporary injunction on the state law. The appeals judges, in their ruling, said the state law conflicts with federal immigration law, which takes precedence.

“Any enforcement of the (state law) would likely conflict with federal law by interfering with the enforcement discretion that federal law gives to federal officers,” the appeals court’s decision says. “(The plaintiffs) have clearly shown that their facial challenge is likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the (state law) stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Appeals Court Judges Duane Benton, Morris Arnold and Jonathan Kobes heard the case and issued Wednesday’s decision, which was written by Benton. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents: Benton by George W. Bush, Arnold by George H.W. Bush, and Kobes by Donald Trump.

The Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice filed the lawsuit on behalf of four Iowa residents who claim their constitutional rights could be violated by the law. The ACLU of Iowa joined the plaintiffs’ legal team.

“This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” Erica Johnson, the founding executive director of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, said in a press release. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has represented the State of Iowa and has been joined in its defense by 21 other Republican-led states.

“When the Biden Administration failed to do its job and secure our borders, Iowa stepped up with our own law to keep our citizens safe. Under the Biden Administration, every state became a border state. Now, President Trump has delivered on his promise to close the borders and has shown his support for Iowa’s right to do the same in our state,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said in a statement. “While we are disappointed with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling today, we are not done working to uphold Iowa’s laws.”

How the court reached its decision

The appeals court ruled the state law conflicts with federal immigration law because the state law contains no exceptions for determining when an individual is found in violation or when an individual should be removed from the country. Federal immigration law allows for both.

The court also noted that the state law requires an individual found guilty to be removed specifically to the country from which the person entered the U.S., while federal immigration law allows officials leeway to determine to where an individual should be deported.

“Even if section 2 (of the state law) were interpreted to have the same exceptions as federal law, the state law still conflicts with federal law because it creates a parallel scheme of enforcement for immigration law,” the court’s decision says. “Under section 2, Iowa could prosecute an illegal alien whom federal officials have exercised their discretion not to bring an enforcement action against.”

The court’s decision adds later, “Federal immigration law grants broad discretion to federal officials. … Discretion in the enforcement of federal immigration law is vital for accomplishing the purposes of federal immigration law.”

The two Iowa residents represented by Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, listed anonymously in the case as Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe, argue the state law would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws are “the supreme law of the land.”

According to court documents, Doe in 2005 was denied admission to the U.S. and issued a removal order, but that removal order was later waived and she obtained lawful permanent residence status reentering the U.S. And Roe was deported in 2017, but later her prior removal order was waived and she reentered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.

Doe and Roe argue the state law would criminalize their residence in Iowa and subject them to removal despite their lawful status.

“(The state law) is the worst anti-immigrant law in Iowa’s history. (The appeals court) ruling keeps (the state law) blocked and protects immigrants in Iowa from many serious harms: arrest, detention, deportation, family separation, and incarceration, all by the state,” ACLU of Iowa legal director Rita Bettis Austen said in a joint press release with Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice. “The court reaffirmed that the Iowa Legislature does not have authority to pass its own immigration laws to detain and deport people. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and this decision protects families and ensures that our laws are applied fairly and consistently.”

The American Immigration Council also issued a statement in the joint press release, noting the expansive impact the ruling could have.

“The Eighth Circuit’s decision resonates far beyond Iowa,” American Immigration Council deputy legal director Emma Winger said. “Across the country, we’re seeing states attempt to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. This could create a reality in which a person could be welcomed in one state and arrested in the next, just for crossing a border. Under our Constitution, immigration has to be handled at a federal level so families aren’t trapped in chaos. This ruling upholds that principle.”

The appeals court highlighted two unanswered questions and instructed the District Court to answer them: Who does the preliminary injunction enjoin from enforcing the state law, and to whom does the preliminary injunction provide relief? The appeals court said the District Court should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate.

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

Get the latest Iowa politics and government coverage each morning in the On Iowa Politics newsletter.

Download: 2025-10-23 Iowa MMJ Opinion Affirming PI.pdf