Federal Appeals Court Upholds Block on Iowa Illegal Immigration Law

A federal court keeps Iowa’s law increasing state-level enforcement of illegal immigration on hold, citing conflict with federal rules.

An Iowa State Trooper (L) assists Border Patrol in detaining illegal immigrants from Honduras and Guatemala while deployed to Texas, in Kinney County, Texas, on July 21, 2021. Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times

A federal appeals court has upheld a preliminary injunction that prevents Iowa from enforcing a statute signed into law last April that criminalizes the reentry of individuals previously denied admission to the United States and mandates state-ordered removal proceedings.

The decision, handed down on Jan. 24 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, keeps in place an earlier district court order halting the law known as Senate File 2340. The three-judge panel concluded that the measure conflicts with federal immigration regulations and the discretion of federal authorities to determine removal actions, according to their ruling.

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340 to penalize anyone who, after being deported or refused admission by federal authorities, reenters or resides in the state.

It also would require state courts to order such individuals to return to the last country from which they entered. The law was set to take effect July 1, 2024, until the U.S. Department of Justice, alongside Iowa-based organizations, temporarily blocked it, arguing that immigration policy falls under federal purview and that the state measure risked causing confusion in foreign affairs.

The court upheld the district judge’s findings that the Iowa statute likely runs afoul of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, because federal law already prescribes penalties for illegal reentry and grants federal authorities broad latitude in deciding who should be subject to deportation.

The appellate panel found that, by creating a separate state-level crime, Iowa’s law intrudes on federal decisions about whom to remove and where to send them.

The ruling also noted concerns that state prosecutions under the measure would clash with the U.S. government’s ability to prioritize immigration enforcement and manage diplomatic issues that can arise when returning individuals to specific countries.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird criticized the outcome, reiterating support for the measure and calling for continued resistance.

“Iowa stood strong against the Biden-Harris border invasion that made every state a border state. And despite today’s court ruling, the battle is far from over. As President Trump works nationally to fix the mess Biden and Harris created on the southern border, we will continue fighting in Iowa to defend our laws and keep families safe,” Bird said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.

Supporters of the law had argued that states should be allowed to protect their interests when the federal government does not act aggressively enough on immigration issues.

Opponents maintained that a patchwork of state initiatives would undermine a unified national immigration strategy and jeopardize the rights of those who may qualify for exemptions or federal relief.

By leaving the injunction in place, the federal appeals court determined that any enforcement of the Iowa statute would likely interfere with the federal government’s enforcement protocols and diplomatic objectives.

Under the Eighth Circuit’s order, the district court’s preliminary injunction remains active while litigation continues, effectively preventing Iowa authorities from enforcing the law until the case reaches its final resolution, according to the ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times on the litigation by publication time.

Caden Pearson contributed to this article.