Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho Immigration Law

Federal Judge Amanda Brailsford has temporarily blocked Idaho’s immigration law allowing local police to arrest migrants suspected of illegal entry, citing likely constitutional violations and overreach into federal authority.

Quick Takes

Court Halts Enforcement of Idaho’s Immigration Law

A federal judge has suspended Idaho’s newly enacted House Bill 83, which sought to expand local law enforcement authority over immigration matters. The law, passed in March, would have allowed police to arrest individuals suspected of being in the country illegally if they were implicated in another crime. Judge Amanda Brailsford’s preliminary injunction prevents the state from enforcing the controversial legislation after finding it likely violates the US Constitution’s supremacy clause by intruding on federal immigration authority. The decision represents a significant setback for state lawmakers who have been pushing for greater local control over immigration enforcement.

The Idaho law created new state crimes of “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry,” specifically targeting unauthorized immigrants and those who had been previously deported. Under the legislation, convictions required suspicion of another crime, with unlawful state entry classified as a misdemeanor that could be elevated to a felony under certain circumstances. The law also included provisions granting immunity to law enforcement officers from related lawsuits, potentially shielding them from legal challenges over immigration enforcement actions.

ACLU Claims Victory Against “Unconstitutional” Legislation

The ACLU of Idaho, which filed the lawsuit challenging House Bill 83, has praised the court’s decision to block the law’s implementation. The organization argued that the legislation improperly tasked local agents with federal duties and potentially violated constitutional due process protections. The judge’s ruling acknowledged these concerns, stating that the ACLU demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on claims that the Idaho law violates the US Constitution and is preempted by federal immigration law.

The ACLU further emphasized that the law would cause irreparable injury to those it represents, including immigrants and their families in Idaho. The organization’s legal team successfully argued that the state was attempting to supersede federal immigration enforcement by allowing local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, a power reserved for federal authorities. This federal-state conflict formed the core of the judge’s reasoning for issuing the preliminary injunction.

State Officials Consider Next Legal Steps

Idaho state officials are now evaluating their options following the court’s decision. The Idaho Office of the Attorney General indicated they are reviewing the ruling to determine how to proceed with defending the legislation. The state had previously argued that the law was necessary to address immigration issues that were not being adequately handled by federal authorities. The preliminary injunction does not represent a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality, but rather prevents its enforcement while the legal challenge proceeds through the courts.

The legal battle in Idaho mirrors similar conflicts in other states, including Florida, where a federal judge recently criticized state officials for suggesting that local law enforcement could ignore her order blocking an immigration law. These cases highlight the growing tension between state legislatures seeking to address immigration concerns and the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration policy. As the Idaho case proceeds, it may establish important precedents for how far states can go in creating their own immigration enforcement mechanisms.