On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford approved a longer preliminary injunction, which prohibits Idaho from enforcing the immigration-related crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against a controversial Idaho law that would let the state prosecute certain immigration offenses in its own courts.
According to The Idaho Capital Sun, the Idaho Legislature passed the new law in 2023. It defines a new category of immigration-related crimes, including the crimes of “illegal entry” and “illegal re-entry.” Aside from these provisions, the law also makes “trafficking a dangerous illegal alien a crime.
The rule could be applicable to many undocumented migrants in Idaho, as well as those who try to return to the state after a prior deportation. However, House Bill 83 does include a caveat: the only migrants eligible for deportation under the law are those who have already been convicted of another crime or who are suspected of committing another, non-immigration-related crime.
Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed the bill into effect at the end of March, but its implementation was blocked hours later when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement; the restraining order was later extended upon the request of the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleged that its clients are “likely to suffer irreparable injury” without the court’s immediate intervention.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford approved a longer preliminary injunction, which prohibits Idaho from enforcing the immigration-related crimes of illegal entry and illegal re-entry.
The American Civil Liberties Union has already posited the Brailsford’s decision as a victory, albeit one that remains incomplete.
“We are pleased the court recognized that enforcement of this law is harmful and unconstitutional,” ACLU of Idaho staff attorney told The Idaho Capital Sun. “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.”
Since filing the lawsuit in March, the ACLU has remained optimistic about its chances of success.
“Courts in other states who have passed these [anti-immigrant] laws have agreed with our legal argument, and we expect the court to do so here,” said ACLU of Idaho legal director Paul Carlos Southwick.
In a press conference, Southwick told reporters that HB-83 is problematic for several reasons.
The lawsuit, for instance, alleges that HB-83 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants federal law precedence over state law. It also purportedly violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by regulating or attempting to regulate travel into and out of Idaho.
And lastly, Southwick says, the law is too vague to be enforced.
“This law was a result of a lack of back-and-forth between the House and the Senate and deciding what version of the bill would pass, and unfortunately, they cobbled together a version that is incomprehensible,” Southwick said. “And everyone, including our undocumented community, has a right to understand the law so that they know what the provisions of that law are and what they may or may not be violating.”
Sources
ACLU of Idaho sues state for new immigration enforcement bill just signed into law
Federal judge blocks new Idaho immigration law through preliminary injunction as lawsuit plays out
Join the conversation!