In April 2024, Governor Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 2340 into law.[1] The statute authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to arrest immigrants in Iowa who have previously been deported or barred entry into the United States.[2] The law mirrors a similar piece of legislation passed by the Texas state legislature in 2023.[3] Both states contend that the Biden administration has failed to adequately secure the nation’s borders.[4] In response, Reynolds believed it was necessary to take action to protect Iowans.[5] Meanwhile, the Biden administration has indicated it remains firm in its commitment to uphold the nation’s immigration laws.[6] 

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice filed separate lawsuits to prevent Senate File 2340 from entering into force.[7] In both lawsuits, the parties asserted that the law was unconstitutional, claiming it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.[8] Additionally, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the state from executing the law.[9] Before the law could enter into force on July 1, 2024, the presiding federal judge, the Honorable Stephen Locher, granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.[10]

Under binding Supreme Court precedent, Senate File 2340 is unconstitutional. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land.[11] Therefore, any state law that conflicts with federal law will be preempted. Essentially, meaning that the higher authority, the federal law, will supersede the state law. In the context of immigration affairs, the federal government possesses vast authority.[12] Such power is grounded in its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and on its inherent sovereign authority to manage and conduct foreign relations.[13]

In Arizona v. State, the Supreme Court struck down sections of an Arizona immigration statute, reasoning that it interfered with federal law.[14] The statute created state-level immigration offenses and authorized state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws.[15] The Court held that such provisions violated the Supremacy Clause because they obstructed the federal government’s broad power regarding immigration.[16] Specifically, the nullified sections either interfered with an area that was solely under federal control or impacted federal enforcement abilities.[17] 

Similarly, Senate File 2340 conflicts with federal policy by allowing state officials to arrest immigrants with permanent legal status in the United States. Such a rule is directly at odds with federal law that recognizes permanent legal status as a defense against prosecution.[18] As Judge Locher describes, the Iowa statute creates an “untenable dichotomy” between state and federal law.[19] Therefore, Senate File 2340 is preempted. 

Ultimately, Judge Locher concluded that while the law may be justified as a matter of politics, it is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.[20] However, this law has serious implications and is fundamentally unconscionable from a public policy perspective. Notably, the law will instill fear in immigrant communities, particularly because it allows for the arrest of individuals currently living legally in the United States.[21] For example, individuals, including children, who have been granted asylum or provided visas to protect them against crime may be at risk of deportation.[22] According to the Marshalltown chief of police, the law will undermine public safety as community members will be reluctant to contact and engage with the police. Moreover, the deportation of legal immigrants will cause familial separation,[23] inflicting unnecessary trauma and hardship on family members. Furthermore, the law will encourage racial profiling as local law enforcement agencies do not have access to the databases and training needed to identify “which of the many complex immigration statuses a person might have.”[24] Such consequences of Senate File 2340 are both inconsistent with federal policy and inhumane.