A federal judge has blocked Idaho’s controversial immigration law, putting local enforcement efforts on hold while constitutional questions loom large.
At a Glance
- Judge Amanda Brailsford issued a preliminary injunction against Idaho’s House Bill 83, which allowed local police to arrest migrants suspected of illegal entry
- The law created new state immigration crimes including “illegal entry” and “trafficking a dangerous illegal alien”
- ACLU filed the lawsuit, arguing the bill improperly assigns federal duties to local agents
- The judge ruled the law likely violates the Constitution’s due process clause and conflicts with federal immigration authority
- Idaho officials are reviewing the decision to determine next legal steps
Federal Injunction Halts Idaho Immigration Enforcement
Idaho’s attempt to tackle illegal immigration through local enforcement has hit a significant roadblock. Federal Judge Amanda Brailsford issued a preliminary injunction against House Bill 83, known as the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act, effectively preventing state authorities from implementing key provisions of the law. The legislation, passed in March, empowered local police to detain migrants suspected of illegal entry when they were implicated in other crimes, creating state-level immigration offenses that mirror federal statutes.
The injunction came after the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. Judge Brailsford determined that the ACLU demonstrated “a strong likelihood of success” on claims that the Idaho law violates the Constitution’s due process clause and is likely preempted by federal immigration law. This means the state cannot enforce the new immigration crimes established by the bill while the court case proceeds to determine its ultimate legality.
Constitutional Concerns and Legal Challenges
The Idaho law drew immediate comparisons to a similar 2023 Texas law that has faced its own legal challenges. House Bill 83 created new state-level immigration crimes, including “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry,” specifically targeting unauthorized immigrants and those previously deported. The legislation also created the crime of “trafficking a dangerous illegal alien” and granted immunity to law enforcement officers from related lawsuits. Under the law, unlawful state entry would be classified as a misdemeanor but could be elevated to a felony if the person was involved in another crime.
“We are pleased the court recognized that enforcement of this law is harmful and unconstitutional,” said ACLU of Idaho Staff Attorney Emily Croston.
At the core of the legal challenge is whether states have the authority to create and enforce their own immigration laws. The ACLU argued that the Idaho law improperly tasks local law enforcement with federal duties and potentially violates constitutional due process protections. According to the lawsuit, the law attempts to supersede federal immigration enforcement by allowing local law enforcement officers to essentially act as immigration agents, an authority traditionally reserved for federal officials.
State Response and Path Forward
Idaho officials have indicated they are not ready to abandon their legislative effort. The state’s Attorney General’s Office has already begun reviewing the court’s decision to determine potential next steps in defending the law. “The Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the decision to determine next steps. We will continue to defend House Bill 83 in full,” said Idaho Office of the Attorney General spokesperson Damon Sidur. This suggests state officials may be preparing to appeal the injunction or modify the legislation to address the constitutional concerns raised by the court.
“We are confident this lawsuit will succeed on its merits, and we hope it sends a message to Idaho’s lawmakers that passing anti-immigrant, unconstitutional legislation is not what Idaho needs,” said ACLU of Idaho Staff Attorney Emily Croston.
The Idaho case comes as several states have attempted to assert more control over immigration enforcement within their borders, citing concerns about inadequate federal action. Similar legal battles are unfolding in Florida, where U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams has extended a temporary restraining order against a state immigration statute after authorities arrested 15 people, including a U.S. citizen, under that law. These cases highlight the ongoing tension between state initiatives to address immigration concerns and the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration policy.
