In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld an injunction against Iowa’s controversial anti-immigrant law, SF 2340, protecting immigrant families and reinforcing constitutional limits on state power.
On October 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered a decisive victory for immigrant communities and the rule of law by upholding an injunction that blocks Iowa’s Senate File 2340 (SF 2340). This law, described as the most severe anti-immigrant legislation in Iowa’s history, sought to criminalize the presence of certain immigrants in the state, even those who are legally authorized to be in the United States.
SF 2340 aimed to empower local officials to conduct arrests and deportations, a power that is constitutionally reserved for federal authorities. This federal oversight is crucial to maintaining a consistent national immigration policy, preventing a fragmented approach that could lead to family separations and chaos across state lines.
“This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” said Erica Johnson, founding executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), the organization that initiated the lawsuit. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”
The lawsuit, titled Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, was filed by Iowa MMJ alongside two individual plaintiffs, with representation from the ACLU of Iowa, the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, and the American Immigration Council.
Under SF 2340, non-citizens who had previously been deported or denied entry to the United States would have faced criminal charges for residing in Iowa, regardless of any subsequent lawful status or federal permission to return. Additionally, the law would have allowed state and local law enforcement to arrest individuals based solely on their presence in the state and mandated state judges to issue deportation orders. Such powers are constitutionally designated to the federal government, ensuring that families are not divided by conflicting state regulations.
“SF 2340 is the worst anti-immigrant law in Iowa’s history. Today’s ruling keeps SF 2340 blocked and protects immigrants in Iowa from many serious harms: arrest, detention, deportation, family separation, and incarceration, all by the state,” stated Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa. “At a time when the federal government is causing so much harm to families, it’s all the more important that the state is not permitted to make things even worse. The Court reaffirmed that the Iowa legislature does not have authority to pass its own immigration laws to detain and deport people.”
The law was initially enacted on April 10, 2024, but was blocked from taking effect on June 17, 2024, leading the state of Iowa to appeal the decision. Following the recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit, the law will remain blocked as the case continues to navigate the federal court system.
“The Eighth Circuit’s decision resonates far beyond Iowa,” remarked Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council. “Across the country, we’re seeing states attempt to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. This could create a reality in which a person could be welcomed in one state and arrested in the next, just for crossing a border. Under our Constitution, immigration has to be handled at a federal level so families aren’t trapped in chaos. This ruling upholds that principle.”
Spencer Amdur, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s national immigrants’ rights project, emphasized the significance of the ruling, stating, “Today the Eighth Circuit reiterated what the Supreme Court has said for over a hundred years: States have no business regulating immigration on their own. This law would have torn families apart and denied people their right to live in this country and seek legal protections. The court was right to strike it down, just like courts have done for other laws like this around the country.”
As the legal battle continues, the implications of this ruling are expected to influence immigration policy discussions and enforcement practices not only in Iowa but across the United States.
Source: Original article