The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, where the justices asked the solicitor general for views on Iowa\'s illegal reentry law. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo via Wikimedia Commons (public domain).
The justices want the federal government’s view before deciding whether to hear Iowa’s appeal, putting an administration that dropped its own challenge to the law in the position of judging it.
The Supreme Court on Oct. 19 asked the Trump administration to weigh in on whether Iowa may enforce its illegal reentry law, a 2024 statute that makes it a state crime for a previously deported noncitizen to be found in Iowa and lets state judges order people to leave the country. The order, in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, No. 26-49, invites the solicitor general to file a brief before the Court decides whether to take up Iowa’s appeal of a ruling that keeps the Iowa illegal reentry law blocked. The answer could shape similar measures other states are defending in court.
The request is routine when the federal government has a stake in a case it is not a party to, but the politics here are not. The Justice Department under President Biden sued Iowa over the law in 2024, and the United States dismissed that suit in 2025, after President Trump took office, according to the Eighth Circuit’s opinion. The legal question the Court now wants addressed is the same one the federal government originally raised: whether Washington’s control of immigration leaves room for a state to punish reentry on its own.
The law, Senate File 2340, now Iowa Code chapter 718C, applies to anyone who was denied admission, excluded, deported or removed and is later found in Iowa. The base offense is at least an aggravated misdemeanor, carrying up to two years in prison. On conviction a judge must order the person returned to the country they came from, refusing to go is a separate crime, and prosecutors may not pause a case because a federal immigration decision is pending. A federal judge in Des Moines, Stephen Locher, blocked it before it could take effect in July 2024. On Oct. 23, 2025, an Eighth Circuit panel affirmed in an opinion by Judge Duane Benton, holding that the law likely conflicts with federal law in every application because it interferes with the enforcement discretion Congress gave federal officials. The full court later declined to rehear the case, with Judge David Stras dissenting.
The challengers are an immigrant advocacy group and two Iowa green card holders whose earlier removal orders were later waived. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird’s petition, filed July 2, asks two questions, according to SCOTUSblog’s case summary: whether challengers can sue before enforcement when their only injury comes from applications state officials say they will not pursue, and whether overlap with the federal reentry crime is enough to strike down a state law on its face. Twenty-five states, led by Oklahoma and Florida, backed Iowa in August, warning that the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning could threaten state drug, identity theft and felon-in-possession laws that also overlap with federal crimes. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, argue the law is preempted, and both lower courts agreed.
The federal crime Iowa copied is already among the most heavily prosecuted offenses in the country. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that 18,204 illegal reentry cases were sentenced in federal court in fiscal 2025, about 80 percent of all immigration cases and up 45 percent from 12,550 the year before. More than half came from two Texas districts, based on the Commission’s district figures. Iowa has framed its law as a response to an immigration crisis, Courthouse News reported in 2024; the courts so far have said the choice of whom to prosecute belongs to federal officials.
The solicitor general’s answer will carry real weight. The administration favors aggressive enforcement, yet it is federal enforcement discretion that the Eighth Circuit found the Iowa law undercuts. A brief backing Iowa would reverse the position Washington took in 2024; a brief urging the Court to stay out would leave the injunction in place. Invitations like this usually add months, making argument this term less likely even if review is granted. The Court has been cautious before: in July 2025 it refused Florida’s request to enforce its new state immigration crime while litigation continued.
For now nothing changes on the ground: the Iowa illegal reentry law stays blocked, and reentry prosecutions in Iowa remain a federal matter.
Next steps in the Iowa case
- The solicitor general’s brief: no deadline is set, and the Court typically holds a petition until the invited brief arrives.
- The district court remand: the Eighth Circuit sent the case back to decide how broad the injunction should be in light of Trump v. CASA.
- Parallel cases: Oklahoma’s similar law was enjoined and on appeal in the Tenth Circuit as of August, according to the Oklahoma attorney general’s office.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources: Supreme Court order list, Oct. 19, 2026; Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, No. 24-2263 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025); Amicus brief in No. 26-49 citing the denial of rehearing en banc; SCOTUSblog, Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice case page; Oklahoma Attorney General, 25-state amicus announcement (Aug. 12, 2026); Law360, “Justices Want SG’s Input On Block Of Iowa Immigration Law” (Oct. 19, 2026); Courthouse News, “Iowa asks federal court to allow enforcement of its immigration law” (Sept. 26, 2024); U.S. Sentencing Commission, Quick Facts: Illegal Reentry Offenses, FY2025; Supreme Court docket, Uthmeier v. Florida Immigrant Coalition, No. 24A1269.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
