Trump DOJ Dismisses Biden’s Challenges to Iowa, Oklahoma Laws

Yesterday at 9:59 pm

2365 posts

Trump DOJ Dismisses Biden’s Challenges to Iowa, Oklahoma Laws \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration moved to dismiss lawsuits the Biden administration had filed against Iowa and Oklahoma over state laws criminalizing the presence of undocumented immigrants. The laws, modeled after Texas’ legislation, remain on hold while courts review their constitutionality. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird praised Trump’s decision as a “major victory.” Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups vowed to continue fighting against the enforcement of such laws.

Trump DOJ Ends Biden’s Immigration Lawsuits: Quick Looks

Trump DOJ Action: The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Trump moved to dismiss lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma regarding state immigration laws.
State Laws: Iowa and Oklahoma passed laws that allow local authorities to arrest undocumented immigrants, similar to Texas’ law.
Legal Battle: Biden’s DOJ sued all three states, arguing the laws interfered with federal immigration authority.
Court Status: The Iowa and Oklahoma laws remain on hold, pending legal rulings on their constitutionality.
Political Reaction: Iowa AG Brenna Bird hailed the move as a “major victory,” while Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond blamed Biden’s border policies for making state laws necessary.
Immigrant Rights Groups: The ACLU of Iowa and Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice vowed to keep fighting against the law.

Deep Look

Trump Administration Ends Federal Challenges to Iowa and Oklahoma Laws

In a major policy shift, the Trump administration moved on Friday to dismiss lawsuits that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) had filed against Iowa and Oklahoma over their strict immigration enforcement laws.

The decision reflects Trump’s hardline immigration stance and signals a greater role for states in enforcing immigration laws, a move that Biden’s DOJ had actively opposed.

The laws in question—modeled after Texas’ state-level immigration law—allow local authorities to arrest and prosecute individuals who have either:

Previously been removed or denied admission to the U.S.
Have outstanding deportation orders.

While Biden’s DOJ had sued Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, arguing that their state laws interfered with federal immigration enforcement, the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the lawsuits now leaves the legal fate of these state measures in question.

A Legal Tug-of-War: State vs. Federal Immigration Control

Under President Biden, the DOJ aggressively challenged Republican-led state immigration laws, arguing that only the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

The legal battle escalated when:

Texas’ law—the most comprehensive of the three—was temporarily blocked in March 2023, just hours after taking effect.
Iowa and Oklahoma’s laws were similarly paused by the courts, pending legal review.

With Trump back in office, his DOJ is reversing course, effectively ending the federal government’s opposition to these state-level laws.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda: A Return to Hardline Policies

Trump has long positioned immigration enforcement as a cornerstone of his political agenda. During his first term, he enacted a series of executive orders aimed at tightening border security and ramping up deportations.

Now, with Biden’s lawsuits dismissed, Republican leaders in Iowa and Oklahoma have declared victory, viewing the move as a vindication of their states’ authority to enforce immigration laws.

“Today, President Trump again proved that he has Iowa’s back and showcased his commitment to Making America Safe Again by dropping Biden’s ridiculous lawsuit,” said Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird.

Similarly, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond blamed Biden’s “failure on border security” for forcing states to take action.

“The Biden administration’s absurd opposition to (Oklahoma’s law) was particularly frustrating since it was the White House’s gross negligence on border security that made the state law necessary in the first place,” Drummond said.

Immigrant Rights Groups Vow to Continue the Legal Fight

Despite the Trump administration’s withdrawal of federal lawsuits, immigrant rights groups are not backing down.

The ACLU of Iowa and Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice have vowed to continue challenging Iowa’s law, arguing that it:

Encourages racial profiling
Creates confusion for law enforcement
Violates constitutional protections

“With today’s DOJ filing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to working to keep this harmful law from being enforced in Iowa,” said Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa.

8th Circuit Court’s Ruling Complicates Legal Strategy

The legal battle took a new turn last month, when the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit filed by Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice should be dismissed. The court reasoned that the federal lawsuit (U.S. v. Iowa) made the case moot—but now that Trump’s DOJ has withdrawn the federal case, the future of state-level challenges remains uncertain.

Immigrant advocacy groups have already filed a petition for a rehearing, setting up another potential legal showdown.

Could Other Republican States Follow Suit?

With federal opposition removed, Iowa and Oklahoma may attempt to enforce their laws—a move that could trigger more lawsuits and appeals.

If courts ultimately uphold these laws, other Republican-led states could be inspired to pass similar immigration policies, expanding state-level enforcement authority nationwide.

States like Florida, Georgia, and Arizona—which have historically passed strict immigration measures—may now see an opportunity to test federal limits on state-driven immigration laws.

What’s Next for Immigration Laws in Iowa and Oklahoma?

While the federal lawsuits have been dropped, the final legal ruling on these state laws is still pending. Here’s what to watch:

State Enforcement: Without federal pushback, Iowa and Oklahoma could move to enforce their laws, prompting new legal challenges.
Judicial Rulings: Federal courts must decide whether these laws violate the Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law.
Potential Supreme Court Review: If appellate courts issue contradictory rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court may intervene.

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for U.S. Immigration Policy

Trump’s dismissal of these lawsuits sends a strong signal about his administration’s stance on immigration:

Empowering states to play a larger role in immigration enforcement.
Rolling back Biden-era legal challenges that sought to centralize control in Washington.
Encouraging other Republican states to pass similar immigration laws.

While Republican leaders celebrate this as a victory for state rights, immigrant advocates warn that it could lead to increased racial profiling, legal confusion, and costly court battles.

Conclusion: A Shift in Immigration Power Dynamics

The Trump administration’s decision to drop the Biden-era immigration lawsuits represents a significant shift in how immigration laws are enforced at the state level.

While Republican-led states may now be emboldened to push stricter laws, legal challenges from immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders ensure that this battle over state vs. federal immigration authority is far from over.

With Trump’s immigration crackdown back in full force, the future of state-driven enforcement policies will be one of the most closely watched legal and political battles of his presidency.