Iowa may not enforce a 2024 state law that makes it a crime for a person who was previously deported to enter the state, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Iowa’s statute is likely preempted by federal immigration law, because enforcement of Iowa’s law would invade the U.S. government’s interest in enforcing federal immigration law.
Iowa’s statute, Senate File 2340, makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison for a person who was previously deported or removed from this country to be present within the state’s boundaries. Those convicted of violating the statute must return to the nation from which they illegally entered.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued in 2024 to block enforcement of Iowa’s statute, which had been scheduled to go into effect this last July. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement. That decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit panel on Friday.
“The United States has clearly shown that its facial challenge is likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Act stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Circuit Appeals Judge William Benton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the panel. He was joined by Circuit Appeals Judge Jonathan Kobes, a Donald Trump appointee, and Senior Circuit Appeals Judge Morris Arnold, a George H.W. Bush appointee.
An Iowa immigrant advocacy group had filed a similar action against the state. The circuit court dismissed it as moot in light of Friday’s ruling.
Every section of the Iowa statute is likely in conflict with federal immigration law, the federal appeals court found — noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has “long recognized the preeminent role of the Federal Government with respect to the regulation of aliens within our borders.”
In response to the state’s argument that its statute is not a removal regulation but an exercise of traditional state power to exclude certain persons, the appeals court said that even if Iowa had that power, its law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause if it clearly conflicts with federal law.
You can read the full article at Courthouse News Service.