From Texas to Iowa to Oklahoma and beyond, Republican-led states are enacting immigration enforcement laws that have been deemed illegal. These measures assert state authority to regulate immigration, including decisions on who may enter or remain in the country, who must leave, and how these decisions are made.
Proponents of these laws argue that the Biden administration has failed to enforce national immigration laws. Courts have previously rejected similar efforts as unconstitutional.
New state bills echo unconstitutional provisions from past anti-immigrant measures
Historically, anti-immigrant measures by state and local officials have been struck down by federal courts for intruding into areas reserved for the federal government. This was evident in state laws enacted nearly 15 years ago in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia, as well as local ordinances in places like Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Farmers Branch, Texas.
The latest state bills do not address previous legal issues but instead repeat or exacerbate them. For instance, in May 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed S.B. 1718 into law. This law made it a state crime to knowingly transport an individual who entered the U.S. unlawfully into Florida. A federal judge recently enjoined this portion of the law citing previous decisions by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that only the federal government can regulate the unlawful transportation of noncitizens.
Texas and Iowa laws push boundaries further
In December 2023, Texas enacted S.B. 4, granting state officials powers to arrest and prosecute individuals suspected of illegal entry or reentry after removal. This law replicates federal criminal provisions against illegal entry and reentry after removal but also authorizes state court judges to order noncitizens' return to their countries of origin and empowers state personnel to carry out such removals. Iowa’s subsequent law mirrors most of these provisions.
Under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws are "the supreme Law of the Land." The Texas and Iowa laws interfere with federal immigration law by creating a new scheme for removing people from the country without federal supervision.
The provision that prohibits state courts from delaying prosecutions while the federal government determines an individual's immigration status is particularly contentious. This could result in individuals being removed from the country even if they are later found not removable by federal authorities.
Oklahoma's recent legislation prohibits noncitizens from entering or remaining in the state without legal authorization but does not authorize removal from the country or delay prosecutions during federal immigration proceedings. However, it uses terms like "occupation," which has been linked to extremist violence.
Conclusion
Federal courts have already blocked enforcement of these new laws in Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma. Proponents aim for a Supreme Court review that could overturn its 2012 precedent in Arizona v. United States regarding anti-immigrant legislation under the supremacy clause.
For now, these states continue enacting legislation that exceeds their authority, spreads fear within communities, and wastes resources defending unconstitutional measures.
