Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Iowa Migrant Movement of Justice, et al. v. Brenna Bird,n her official capacity as Attorney General of Iowa
Date: 10-28-2025
Case Number: 4:24-cv-00161
Judge: Stephen H. Locher
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Polk County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Des Moines Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Iowa Attorney General's Office
Description:
Des Moines, Iowa, civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who used on a Constitutional law violation theory.
Iowa, in Senate File 2340, criminalized the presence within its boundaries of aliens who illegally reentered the United States. Aliens violating this Act are ordered to return to the country they reentered from. The Act forbids judges from abating a state prosecution due to a pending (or possible) federal determination of the alien's immigration status. Iowa
Migrant Movement for Justice and two aliens residing in Iowa sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act.
* * *
But immigration is not a traditional subject of state regulation. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has "long recognized the preeminent role of the Federal Government with respect to the regulation of aliens within our borders.†Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982). The United States "has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 394. Congress has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.†U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. The United States has inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936). "Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 395. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64 (1941) ("One of the most important and delicate of all international relationships . . . has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country's own nationals when those nationals are in another country.â€). Decisions about the removal of illegal aliens "touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 409. For these reasons, the greatest presumption against preemption likely should not apply.
Iowa, in Senate File 2340, criminalized the presence within its boundaries of aliens who illegally reentered the United States. Aliens violating this Act are ordered to return to the country they reentered from. The Act forbids judges from abating a state prosecution due to a pending (or possible) federal determination of the alien's immigration status. Iowa
Migrant Movement for Justice and two aliens residing in Iowa sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act.
* * *
But immigration is not a traditional subject of state regulation. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has "long recognized the preeminent role of the Federal Government with respect to the regulation of aliens within our borders.†Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982). The United States "has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 394. Congress has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.†U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. The United States has inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936). "Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 395. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64 (1941) ("One of the most important and delicate of all international relationships . . . has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country's own nationals when those nationals are in another country.â€). Decisions about the removal of illegal aliens "touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.†Arizona, 567 U.S. at 409. For these reasons, the greatest presumption against preemption likely should not apply.
Outcome:
the District Court granted a preliminary injunction.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Iowa Migrant Movement of Justice, et al. v. Brenna Bird,n...?
The outcome was: the District Court granted a preliminary injunction. Affirmed
Which court heard Iowa Migrant Movement of Justice, et al. v. Brenna Bird,n...?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Polk County), IA. The presiding judge was Stephen H. Locher.
Who were the attorneys in Iowa Migrant Movement of Justice, et al. v. Brenna Bird,n...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Des Moines Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Iowa Attorney General's Office.
When was Iowa Migrant Movement of Justice, et al. v. Brenna Bird,n... decided?
This case was decided on October 28, 2025.