A federal judge in Des Moines heard arguments on Monday on the attempt by the Reynolds administration to appropriate the federal government’s power to create and enforce immigration laws.
SF 2340 makes it a state crime for a person to be in Iowa if they have previously been denied entry into the U.S., or been deported or otherwise removed from the country. State and local law enforcement are charged with enforcing the new law, and SF 2340 authorizes Iowa judges to issue deportation orders and order people removed from the state and transported to the nearest port of entry for expulsion from the country.
The bill passed the Iowa Legislature with only Republican votes. Gov. Kim Reynolds signed it into law on April 10. The bill is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.
In late April, Principal Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Brian Boynton sent the governor a letter telling her that SF 2340 “is preempted by federal law and violates the United States Constitution,” since U.S. law gives the federal government sole authority to make and enforce immigration law. More than a century of Supreme Court decisions, mostly recently in 2012 in Arizona v. United States, have affirmed that immigration is a federal, not state, matter. Boyton warned Reynolds the DOJ would sue if Iowa decided it would enforce SF 2340.
Both Reynolds and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird issued statements saying SF 2340 would be enforced starting July 1.
On May 9, the ACLU of Iowa, along with the American Immigration Council and the Immigrants Rights Project of the national ACLU, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice and its members, as well as two individuals identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe. The lawsuit challenged SF 2340 as unconstitutional, and included a motion seeking a preliminary injunction preventing it from being enforced while the case is before the courts.
The same day, the DOJ filed its own lawsuit in federal court challenging SF 2340 as unconstitutional. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher heard arguments in a hearing on both lawsuits.
“We’re here today because the state has tried to set up its own deportation system, which, frankly, makes no sense and is clearly unconstitutional,” Emma Winger said at an online news conference hosted by the ACLU of Iowa after the hearing on Monday. “Should this law go into effect, even if you are currently in the United States lawfully, if you were previously deported you could be arrested, imprisoned and forced to leave the country.”
The Iowan known as Jane Roe in the lawsuit is a grandmother who holds a green card and is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Roe, who is originally from Mexico, came to the U.S. originally to join her husband, who had become a lawful permanent resident in the 1980s. She returned to Mexico in 2005 when her mother died, and when she attempted to reenter the U.S., she was stopped at the border and sent back. Roe’s husband, now a U.S. citizen, filed an application seeking permission for her to return legally. It wasn’t until 2022 the application was granted and Roe could rejoin her family.
Roe is now 68 years old and in poor health. If SF 2340 were enforced, she would be subject to arrest by Iowa law enforcement and at risk of being deported by an Iowa judge, even though the U.S. law and the federal government recognize her as a legal permanent resident.
“Just because they were removed one time, it doesn’t mean that they’re forever banned from the states,” Christopher Eiswerth, the attorney representing the DOJ, said during the hearing on Monday.
Arguing on behalf of the Reynolds administration, Iowa Deputy Solicitor General Patrick Valencia claimed SF 2340 simply allowed the state to enforce existing federal immigration law and policy.
“Even if it were true that the law was just enforcing federal standards, states can’t do that,” Winger said during the news conference. “The responsibility for enforcing federal immigration standards belongs solely to the federal government. But, in fact, they aren’t just enforcing federal standards in a number of different ways.”
“One example is that they suggest they copied the federal [law] that makes it a crime to illegally return after a deportation order, but they left out a key piece of that federal statute. The federal statute says expressly it’s a crime unless you return with the consent of the federal government. Miss Doe and Miss Roe returned with the consent of the federal government. The Iowa law does not have that exception.”
Federal law also permits people who are in the country without authorization to contest being deported. “The federal government has a number of different discretionary paths to lawful status that people can apply for if they’re put in the federal system,” Winger said. The new Iowa law doesn’t.
Defending SF 2340, Valencia said regardless of the text of the new law, it’s possible that Iowa law enforcement officials might choose to enforce it in a way that doesn’t violate the Constitution.
“Let the law play out,” he said. “We can’t assume the law will be interpreted unconstitutionally.”
During the news conference, Erica Johnson, founding director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, addressed the impact SF 2340 is already having in Iowa.
“[W]hat we have seen since the law was introduced and was passed and was signed into law is the immigrant community is fearful,” she explained. “It has increased fears in immigrant and refugee communities around the state, and it has overwhelmed local groups who are doing the real work of finding solutions and creating thriving, welcoming communities in our state.”
Local law enforcement officials around the state have been vocal in their opposition to SF 2340.
“The problems at the southern border cannot be solved from Des Moines, Iowa,” Marshalltown Chief of Police Michael Tupper said in a statement in April. “Playing politics with public safety never helps public safety. This law will make the job of law enforcement more difficult. It will diminish public safety because it will cause people to fear the police needlessly. This law has severely harmed community relationships that took decades to build.”
Other law enforcement officials have questioned the practical aspects of trying to enforce immigration law.
“I’m not interested, nor are we equipped, funded or staffed to take on additional responsibilities that historically have never been a function of local law enforcement,” Des Moines Police Chief Dana Wingert told WOI-TV news before Reynolds signed SF 2340.
Iowa AG Brenna Bird issued a statement on Monday after the hearing. The attorney general did not address the question of the new law’s constitutionality, why it would allow the deportation of legal permanent residents, the concerns of law enforcement officials or the impact SF 2340 is already having on immigrant communities in Iowa. Instead, she attacked the Biden administration.
“Since Biden refuses to enforce our immigration laws, Iowa is doing the job for him,” Bird said in the written statement. “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 Erin Murphy pointed out in the Gazette, since first becoming attorney general 18 months ago, Bird has sued the Biden administration 18 times.
Although Bird didn’t address the impact of the state’s attempt to supplant federal immigration law enforcement, a group of about 150 protesters gathered outside the federal courthouse during the hearing did. The protesters at the event organized by Escucha Mi Voz Iowa and the Iowa Catholic Worker marched, sang and prayed. It was not the only protest against SF 2340.
On Sunday night, the Diocese of Des Moines held a prayer vigil to oppose the new law and show support for immigrants in Iowa. On May 1, protesters gathered at the western terrace of the Iowa State Capitol despite rainy weather to make their voice heard in opposition to SF 2340. Protests against the new law are also planned for July 1, the date SF 2340 is supposed to go into effect.
At the conclusion of the hearing on Monday, Judge Locher said he anticipates issuing a ruling well in advance of July 1.
