Connect with us

Iowa

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth

Published

on

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth


A federal judge did not err when finding an Iowa immigration enforcement law likely unconstitutional, a federal appellate court ruled.

But it is sending the case back to determine whether the state should nonetheless be allowed to enforce the law in some cases.

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Oct. 23 decision upholds an injunction blocking Iowa from enforcing Senate File 2340, which Gov. Kim Reynolds signed in April 2024 to make “illegal reentry” a crime under state law.

In a lawsuit bought by the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, Judge Stephen Locher ruled last year that immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility and Iowa’s law is invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisement

“As a matter of politics, the new legislation might be defensible,” Locher wrote in June 2024. “As a matter of constitutional law, it is not.”

Thursday’s decision is technically the second time the 8th Circuit has ruled against the law.

Originally, Iowa was sued twice: by Migrant Movement for Justice and the Biden Administration. Locher granted injunctions in both cases, and in January, the 8th Circuit affirmed his ruling in the DOJ lawsuit and dismissed the second injunction as duplicative.

Shortly after, though, the Trump administration dismissed the federal government’s challenge, and the court agreed to rehear and rule on the injunction in the Migrant Movement for Justice case.

Advertisement

What did Iowa’s immigration law do?

Under the 2024 law, entering or residing in Iowa after being deported from or denied entry to the U.S. or failing to depart when ordered became a state offense. It followed a similar law Texas adopted, both of which have since been blocked by courts.

The Iowa law also required judges to order anyone convicted under the law to return to their country of origin.

In his order blocking the law, Locher identified several problems: Most glaringly, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that state-level immigration laws interfere with and are preempted by federal immigration enforcement.

In the case of Iowa, Locher noted, having state judges order people to leave the country bypasses the extensive and often case- and country-specific federal system to decide when, how, and to where a person can be deported.

Advertisement

“This creates an untenable dichotomy between federal and state law in an area where the Supreme Court has recognized that the United States must speak with a single, harmonious voice,” Locher wrote.

The law also does not make any exceptions for people with current legal resident status. That’s a problem for several of the plaintiffs in the Migrant Movement case, who at one time were deported or denied entry but later were able to obtain legal residency.

While Attorney General Brenna Bird said she did not intend to enforce the law against legal residents, Locher noted county prosecutors would not be bound by her statement.

8th Circuit finds law likely unconstitutional

In it’s ruling Thursday, the 8th Circuit once again upheld Locher’s reasoning.

Judge Duane Benton wrote for the court that Iowa’s law intrudes into federal immigration authority even further than the Arizona law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.

Advertisement

Allowing state officials not only to detain people for suspected immigration violations, but to order them removed from the country, with a potential prison sentence of 10 years, greatly exceeds the state’s powers under the U.S. Constitution, the court found.

The court rejected Iowa’s arguments in defense of the law, finding that many ran contrary to the plain text of the statute.

For example, where Bird argued the law only required the state to deliver aliens to a “port of entry” — namely, the Des Moines airport — and would have no effect outside the state’s borders, the appeals court noted the law requires migrants to leave the entire country, not just the state, under penalty of prison.

“Any enforcement of the act would likely conflict with federal law by interfering with the enforcement discretion that federal law gives to federal officers,” Benton wrote. “(Plaintiffs) have clearly shown that their 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.”

Advertisement

Yes, but: to whom does the injunction apply?

Locher’s injunction blocked any state agent, including county prosecutors, from enforcing the law against anyone. That may be too broad, the appellate court says.

In a June 2025 case against Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited the use of “universal injunctions” that apply beyond the parties in a particular case.

In light of that ruling, the 8th Circuit is directing Locher to consider whether he has authority to block enforcement by all state officers, as opposed to just those named in the lawsuit, and whether the law can be enforced against individuals who are not members of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice.

Regardless of how the injunction may be modified, the lawsuit is likely to continue.

Locher’s June 2024 order put in place a preliminary injunction, blocking the state from enforcing the law while the case progressed. Barring further appeals, Thursday’s appellate decision means the case will continue before Locher for further proceedings before the court could potentially make its injunction permanent.

Advertisement

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.



Source link

Iowa

The One Game That Will Define Iowa’s 2026 Season

Published

on

The One Game That Will Define Iowa’s 2026 Season


When it comes to the Iowa Hawkeyes 2026 football season, it doesn’t get much bigger than Ohio State coming to Kinnick Stadium.

No one knows at this stage where the Buckeyes will be come Oct. 3, but Iowa has a chance to make an early impression against a team that is no stranger to winning the big one.

Iowa’s B1G schedule couldn’t get off to a worse start as they head to Michigan and then welcome the Buckeyes to Kinnick.

Advertisement

Hopefully for Iowa’s sake, their first three games against Northern Illinois, Iowa State, and Northern Iowa are enough to get them prepared. If not, things could get ugly.

ESPN Believes Ohio State is Iowa’s Biggest Opponent in 2026

Advertisement

The helmet of Ohio State Buckeyes wide receiver Jeremiah Smith sits on the sideline prior to the NCAA football game against the Michigan Wolverines at Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Mich. on Nov. 29, 2025. | Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Advertisement

The Michigan game will certainly be a test, but hosting the Buckeyes is a different animal. That gives the Hawkeyes an advantage like no other, and if there was ever a time to give OSU a run for their money, it’s in Iowa City on Oct. 3.

“The Hawkeyes haven’t faced Ohio State at Kinnick Stadium since 2017, when Nate Stanley threw five touchdowns as they stunned the Buckeyes 55-24. An early October win over Ohio State could propel Iowa into the Big Ten title and playoff conversations,” Jake Trotter wrote.

To put things into perspective, Indiana and Oregon were the other two teams that had the Buckeyes listed as their defining game in the 2026 season. Shockingly, Iowa was actually selected against a team, that being Minnesota. Seeing as that’s for the Floyd of Rosedale, it makes complete sense.

Iowa Can’t Let Regular Season Opportunities Go To Waste

Advertisement

Iowa Hawkeyes quarterback Jeremy Hecklinski (10) throws a pass during warmups before a college football game against the Penn State Nittany Lions Oct. 18, 2025 at Kinnick Stadium in Iowa City, Iowa. | Julia Hansen/Iowa City Press-Citizen / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Last year was seemingly the Hawkeyes’ first time to actually make the College Football Playoffs. They came up short as their losses to No. 16 Iowa State, No. 11 Indiana, No. 9 Oregon and No. 17 USC all added up. Sure, those were by a combined 15 points, but that doesn’t matter, as it’s bad enough that a three-loss team made the playoffs.

Advertisement

Iowa ended with a bang as they took down No. 14 Vanderbilt in the ReliaQuest Bowl, 34-27. Now, all eyes are on either Jeremy Hecklinski or Hank Brown. One of those men will have a chance to make their first B1G start at the Big House in Michigan.

Advertisement

It doesn’t get any tougher than that, as Iowa is immediately putting their new QB into deep water. They’ll have three games prior to that to get up to speed, but other than that, it’s go time as OSU awaits after their trip to Michigan.

Don’t forget to bookmark Iowa Hawkeyes on SI for the latest news. exclusive interviews, recruiting coverage and more!



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Iowa

Kee High School remembers legendary coach Gene Schultz

Published

on

Kee High School remembers legendary coach Gene Schultz


The state of Iowa lost a titan of the prep coaching world this week. Former Kee High School baseball coach Gene Schultz died on Monday at the age of 80.

Schultz spent 45 seasons as the baseball coach at Kee, helping turn the program into an Iowa dynasty. He won 9 State championships (not counting 2 fall titles, which the IHSAA doesn’t recognize in the record books), and took the Hawks to 19 State tournaments, which is also the most in Iowa history.

His 1,754 wins are not only the most in Iowa history, but the most of any high school baseball coach in the country.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Iowa

Judge calls state response to comments about Charlie Kirk ‘deeply troubling’

Published

on

Judge calls state response to comments about Charlie Kirk ‘deeply troubling’


“A licensing authority’s enforcement apparatus should not be mobilized in response to political pressure to suppress disfavored commentary on a public figure’s death — and this record raises serious questions about whether that is precisely what occurred here,” a federal judge wrote.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending