February 7, 2025
Explore the ongoing debate over Iowa's new illegal reentry law, Senate File 2340, which criminalizes undocumented immigrants re-entering the U.S. This article examines the constitutionality and implications of the law, highlighting federal court challenges and concerns from civil rights groups.
Civil rights groups across the state of Iowa recently rallied to protest against Iowa's new illegal reentry law. In short, this new legal criminalizes illegal reentry and allows local authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants who have returned to the United States. The related case was heard in Federal Court on June 10, 2024, with the focus being on Senate File 2340.
Senate File 2340 states that any person previously deported or denied entry to the U.S. would be barred from entering Iowa. The crime would be an aggravated misdemeanor in most cases but could become a felony under certain circumstances, including if the person was arrested for allegedly committing another felony. Immigration groups seek halt to Iowa's new 'illegal reentry' law (usatoday.com). This crime can carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
The Department of Justice's Attorney, Christopher Eiswerth, holds the opinion that the new law is unconstitutional. In addition to believing that it is unconstitutional, Attorney Eiswerth and Emma Winger, the council's deputy legal director, believe that the law conflicts with already established Federal law.
There is also concern as it relates to the United States' relationship with other countries. The main issue various individuals take with Senate File 2340 is that if people are removed one time, Senate File 2340, in essence, results in a forever ban from the states.
Another concern is that this law relies on the local police forces being responsible for the enforcement of such a law. It has been noted that numerous police officers have inquired about the enforcement and requested guidance on Senate File 2340 but have been given little to no guidance.
The little guidance they have been given comes directly from the language of the bill, which forbids officers who are enforcing the new law from arresting someone if the person is in a school, a place of worship, a health care facility, or a facility for survivors of sexual assault.
The lack of knowledge, coupled with the fact that the legislation provides legal immunity for local law enforcement and other government officials who are enforcing the law, allows for a concerning combination.
Not only is it difficult to ascertain if they have the manpower and knowledge to be responsible, but another question is if they have the legal authority to enforce such laws. In 2012, the Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States held that states cannot create or implement their immigration laws. The facts of this case were similar, as the case concerned Arizona's immigration law (Senate Bill 1070) and whether federal immigration law preempts state immigration law.
Senate Bill 1070 had four main provisions: The first provision made it a state crime to reside in the United States without legal permission; the second provision made it a state crime to work in the United States without legal permission; the third provision required law enforcement officers to verify the legal status of all individuals who were arrested or detained; and the fourth provision allowed law enforcement officers to arrest individuals without a warrant based on probable cause of unlawful presence. The Court determined that the first, second, and fourth provisions were preempted by Federal Immigration Law.
While there have been Supreme Court cases regarding the legality of similar laws out of the state of Arizona, the new law in the state of Iowa is being referenced as a "Texas-style immigration law." Reynolds signs law letting Iowa police arrest undocumented immigrants (desmoinesregister.com). Similar to the Arizona law, the constitutionality of the Texas law is currently being challenged. The U.S. Justice Department has brought concerns to the Texas law, stating that it could create chaos through the administration of such a law
In signing the bill into law, which will take effect July 1, 2024, Governor Kim Reynolds has been quoted saying, "The Biden administration has failed to enforce our nation's immigration laws, putting the protection and safety of Iowans at risk. . .Those who come into our country illegally have broken the law, yet Biden refuses to deport them. This bill gives Iowa law enforcement the power to do what he is unwilling to do: enforce immigration laws already on the books." Through this statement, Governor Reynolds pushes the notion that this law does not conflict with federal law; rather, Iowa law supports it.
At this time, there is uncertainty as to if the Iowa law will have a similar fate to the one in Arizona.
.avif)
.avif)
Please contact our friendly lawyers to Schedule a Consultation.
See below for our other locations. If our office locations are not convenient for you, we are happy to speak with you by phone.
The purpose of a consultation is to determine whether our firm is a good fit for your legal needs. Although we often discuss expected results and costs, our attorneys do not give legal advice unless and until you choose to retain us. Consultations may carry a charge, depending on the facts of the matter and the area of law. The cost of your consultation, if any, is communicated to you by our intake team or the attorney.
I am personally committed to ensuring that each one of our clients receives the highest level of client service from our team. Our mission is to provide excellent legal work in a cost-effective manner while maintaining open lines of communication between our clients and their attorneys. Many of our clients are going through difficult times in their lives when they reach out to us. They should feel comfortable leaning on the experience and knowledge of our attorneys as their counselors and advocates. We are here to help!
%20(1).jpg)
