
In 2024, Participants at the “For Human Dignity” vigil/rally outside St. Anthony Catholic Church in Davenport, Iowa, hold placards protesting Iowa’s new law that makes it a state crime for illegal reentry into Iowa.
ST. LOUIS – Catholic leaders and immigration advocates welcomed a U.S. Court of Appeals decision Jan. 24 that upholds an injunction blocking enforcement of a 2024 Iowa law that opponents say oversteps federal immigration law. The appeals court decision affirmed a district court decision issuing a preliminary injunction that prevented SF 2340 from taking effect July 1, 2024.
“We are pleased that the Court has continued to block enforcement of SF 2340,” said Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, the public policy voice of Iowa’s bishops. “It is especially problematic that SF 2340 would explicitly allow state officials to prosecute an individual for state immigration crimes, even if that person’s application for immigration relief is pending before federal authorities or they have actually received federal authorization to be present. Our goal is for the government to implement border protection policies that are consistent with humanitarian values, while allowing the authorities to carry out the critical task of identifying and preventing entry of terrorists and dangerous criminals.”
SF 2340 “conflicts with federal law and would have a number of dramatic consequences for Iowans,” ACLU Iowa said in its Jan. 24 news release. “It creates new crimes for anyone in Iowa, including a child, who has reentered the country after being deported — even if that person is now authorized to be in the U.S. The appeals court agreed with the federal district court that the law is unconstitutional and that every part of the law should remain blocked while litigation continues.”
Maria Ayala of Ainsworth, a member of Escucha Mi Voz Iowa, said the law would have mandated local police enforcement of immigration. With the decision upholding the injunction, local law enforcement officers do not need to comply with President Trump’s mass deportation order and Gov. Reynolds’ support of it. “We call on local police chiefs and county sheriffs to stand down; respect our rights and do not assist ICE (Immigration, Customs and Enforcement),” Ayala said.
“Iowa argues that its Act is not a regulation of removal, but rather an exercise of the inherent and traditional state power to ‘exclude’ persons,” the appeals court ruling noted. “Even assuming Iowa possesses an inherent and traditional power to exclude, Iowa’s Act still violates the Supremacy Clause if it clearly conflicts with federal law.”
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, responding to the appeals court decision Jan. 24, said, “… despite the court’s 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.”
ACLU Iowa said the appeals court, in its response “was considering two lawsuits asking that SF 2340 be declared unconstitutional and blocked. One was by the U.S. Department of Justice; the other was by the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, and the national ACLU on behalf of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice and the thousands of immigrants that the organization assists, including two individual Iowans.”
Attorneys filed both lawsuits May 9, eight days after prayer rallies and marches organized in four Iowa cities that called for the law’s repeal and for human dignity. Iowa’s bishops issued a statement May 1, opposing the legislation and calling for a compassionate response to the issue of migration.
“The Constitution assigns the federal government to regulate immigration and manage our international borders,” the Justice Department said in its lawsuit. “Pursuant to this authority, Congress has established a comprehensive immigration framework governing the entry of noncitizens into the U.S. and the removal of noncitizens from the country. Because SF 2340 is preempted by federal law and violates the United States Constitution, the Justice Department seeks a declaration that SF 2340 is invalid and an order preliminarily or permanently enjoining the state from enforcing the law.”
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher, in granting the preliminary injunction, said that among other things, SF 2340 “imposes criminal penalties under state law for certain immigration-related offenses; and requires state court judges to order noncitizens to return to the foreign countries from which they came.”
The appeals court ruling noted, “Discretion in the enforcement of federal immigration law is vital for accomplishing the purposes of federal immigration law. It ‘embraces immediate human concerns.’ It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.”
Iowa “emphasizes that if it cannot enforce the law, it will suffer harms from the presence of tens of thousands of illegal aliens within its borders,” the appeals court ruling said. “Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the federal interest prevailed over state interests in the areas of immigration and foreign affairs. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The order is affirmed.”
Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, said, “Across the country right now, immigrant families are living in fear. Thankfully, for now, communities in Iowa don’t have to worry about this cruel law, which would have subjected even some people living lawfully in the U.S. to arrest and deportation…. Empowering individual states to run our immigration laws is unconstitutional and throws our immigration system deeper into chaos.”
Matthew 25-we need to welcome the stranger.