DOJ Lawsuit
DOJ Lawsuit
INTRODUCTION
1. This action challenges Iowa Senate File 2340, which attempts to displace federal
immigration law and set up an independent state immigration scheme. 2024 Iowa Acts Senate
File 2340 (to be codified as new Iowa Code ch. 718C (2024)) (hereinafter “S.F. 2340”). S.F.
2340 purports to give Iowa state officials broad power to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens
in Iowa who reentered the United States after a previous removal or exclusion. Under this
novel system, the State of Iowa has created its own immigration crime which will require
state police to identify and arrest noncitizens for alleged violations; state prosecutors to
bring charges in state courts; state judges to order deportation; and state officers to facilitate
those orders. The federal government has no role in, and no control over, Iowa’s immigration
scheme.
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 2 of 22
2. The law makes no exception for people who reentered the United States with federal consent
or who later gained lawful immigration status. Nor does the law make an exception for people
who are in the process of obtaining immigration status. And the law provides no opportunity
to raise humanitarian claims for protection from removal enshrined in federal immigration
law and international conventions. People in these situations have explicit federal permission
to remain in the country, yet S.F. 2340 directs state officials to nevertheless force them to
3. The law makes no exception for people who were removed, deported, excluded, or denied
admission and returned as children, nor does it prohibit the prosecution of children.
4. State removals under S.F. 2340 could start as soon as it goes into effect on July 1, 2024. The
law allows judges to order people removed at the very beginning of a prosecution if they
consent to removal. And the law is structured to coerce people to accept these orders, because
if they do not, they face years in a state prison for a S.F. 2340 conviction, followed by a
mandatory removal order after their sentence. And S.F. 2340 contains no affirmative
defenses.
5. S.F. 2340 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Immigration is
system, with detailed procedures that determine whether a person may enter and remain in the
United States, when criminal reentry charges may be deployed in the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion, and what protections people receive to ensure that they are not
6. Congress placed all of the relevant tools and decision-making in the hands of federal
officials—in keeping with the federal government’s exclusive immigration powers and the
2
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 3 of 22
sensitive foreign policy implications of these powers. S.F. 2340 jettisons this system,
grasping control over immigration for state and local actors from the federal government
and depriving people subject to that system of all of the federal rights and process that
Congress requires. S.F. 2340 sanctions the state’s removal of people whom the federal
government has already authorized to reenter or remain in the United States. And it denies
noncitizens the right to apply for federal immigration benefits, contest removal, and seek
federal relief from removal like asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
7. S.F. 2340 is patently illegal. A state cannot replace Congress’s immigration scheme with its
own. Plaintiffs hereby file this complaint for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
9. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa because a substantial portion of the
relevant events occurred or will occur in the District and because Defendants reside in the
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (“Iowa MMJ”) is a statewide membership-
based immigration legal service and advocacy organization that is headquartered in Des
Moines, Iowa.
11. Iowa MMJ’s mission is to build a movement for justice led by immigrants and refugees in
3
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 4 of 22
organizing. They provide legal services to ensure that immigrants and refugees have access
to the federal immigration benefits for which they are eligible, maintain the lawful
immigration status to which they are entitled, and avoid the separation from family and
community and the threat of persecution that results from removal from the United States.
Iowa MMJ lifts up immigrant and refugee voices and advocates for policies that protect
their foundational rights and allow them to integrate into society in Iowa.
12. Iowa MMJ has approximately 2,300 members. Over 350 of those members are dues-paying
and approximately 2,000 members are clients or community members for whom the
membership dues are waived. Iowa MMJ members include people who would be subject to
13. Iowa MMJ member “Anna” is an 18-year-old high school student who was ordered
removed as a child, reentered the United States as a child, and was later granted asylum.
She lives in Iowa with her family. She would be subject to arrest, prosecution,
14. Iowa MMJ member “David” was brought to the United States by his mother when he was
just ten years old. He was deported and returned to the United States shortly after his
removal in order to support his mother and his sister, a U.S. citizen, who suffers from
serious medical conditions. Under S.F. 2340, he could be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned,
and removed.
15. Plaintiffs Doe and Roe, discussed further at paragraphs 18-19, infra, are also Iowa MMJ
members.
16. Iowa MMJ’s legal services team provides representation and consultations to noncitizens
living across Iowa, including by providing six legal clinics each quarter in different regions
4
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 5 of 22
of the state and eight legal clinics in Des Moines. In 2023, Iowa MMJ served over 2,400
clients through its legal program. Many of the people it serves have been previously
deported and are now in the process of applying for lawful immigration status.
17. Iowa MMJ’s advocacy work is designed to center the voices of immigrants and refugees
and build a powerful movement for immigrants’ rights at all levels. The advocacy team
conducts this work through grassroots community organizing and issue campaigns –
18. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a 68-year-old lawful permanent resident who resides in Garnavillo,
Iowa, in Clayton County. Ms. Doe was ordered removed in around 2005 and was deported
to Mexico shortly thereafter. Ms. Doe’s U.S. citizen husband filed a family petition for Ms.
Doe while she was in Mexico, however her husband passed away before the application
could be approved, and the application was converted to a widow petition. The federal
government approved Ms. Doe’s applications for a waiver and for lawful permanent
residence, and she returned to the United States in 2022 with federal authorization. Ms. Doe
resided in Mexico for 17 years while she awaited approval of those applications.
19. Plaintiff Elizabeth Roe is a 40-year-old lawful permanent resident who resides in Des
Moines, Iowa, with her U.S. citizen husband. Roe first came to the United States in 2016 to
reunite with her two U.S. citizen brothers. In February 2017, she was ordered removed and
deported to her home country of Colombia. She married her U.S. citizen husband in
Colombia in 2018, and he filed an immediate relative visa petition on Roe’s behalf later that
5
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 6 of 22
year. The federal government approved the visa petition and inadmissibility waiver, and
20. Defendant Brenna Bird is the Attorney General of Iowa, the chief legal officer of the State.
Iowa Const. art. V, § 12. As such, she is responsible for the enforcement of all Iowa
criminal laws including S.F. 2340. Under Iowa law, the Attorney General also oversees the
enforcement of the State’s criminal statutes by county attorneys. Iowa Code § 13.2(g). The
Attorney General is also required to appear in courts on behalf of the State of Iowa and is
(7). The Attorney General is tasked with supervising and providing training for Iowa county
attorneys on changes in the law. The Attorney General is sued in her official capacity.
21. Defendant Bird has publicly stated her strong support for the enforcement of S.F. 2340. She
“applaud[ed]” Governor Reynold’s enactment of S.F. 2340, claiming that the law
“protect[s] Iowans” and that through this law “Iowa is sending a clear message that illegal
reentry will not be tolerated.” Press Release, Office of the Iowa Attorney General, Attorney
General Bird Applauds Governor Reynolds for Signing Immigration Law (April 10, 2024),
available at https://iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-bird-applauds-
refuses to stop the border invasion [and] keep our communities safe, [Iowa] will do the job
https://x.com/BrennaBird/status/1786427577336303750.
22. Defendant Kimberly Graham is the County Attorney of Polk County, Iowa. Iowa Code §
6
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 7 of 22
be enforced in the county, state laws and county ordinances” such as S.F. 2340, id., and has
a regular practice of enforcing all of Iowa’s criminal laws. Defendant Graham is sued in her
official capacity.
23. Defendant Zach Herrmann is the County Attorney of Clayton County, Iowa. Iowa Code §
331.756(1). Like Defendant Graham, Defendant Herrmann is tasked with enforcing state
laws within the county, such as S.F. 2340, id., and has a regular practice of enforcing all of
STATEMENT OF FACTS
24. The federal government has exclusive power over immigration. See, e.g., Arizona v. United
25. Congress has created a comprehensive system of federal laws regulating and enforcing
immigration in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.
26. Federal immigration statutes and the associated implementing regulations and precedential
administrative law decisions form an exceptionally detailed, complex, and finely reticulated
regulatory regime. Congress has frequently amended the relevant provisions of the INA,
including by passing particularly significant legislation in 1952, 1965, 1980, 1986, 1990,
1996, 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2008, along with dozens of other Acts modifying the
27. Congress has specified categories of noncitizens who may be denied admission to the
United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182, including those who have previously been removed, see
7
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 8 of 22
28. Congress barred noncitizens from seeking admission for a period of five, ten, or twenty
years (depending on the type of removal order) following removal, but also provided a
mechanism to seek consent to return even during the period of inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(9)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.2. Those who receive consent or seek admission after
waiting the specified period may reenter via a host of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas
29. Congress has established several alternative removal procedures to decide whether a person
shortened form of proceedings applicable to recent arrivals, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1); and full
trial-like removal proceedings subject to administrative and judicial appeals, id. § 1229a.
Congress also extensively regulated where a noncitizen ordered removed may be sent. Id.
§ 1231(b). Under federal law, people are allowed to remain in the United States while
30. Congress created multiple mechanisms that allow noncitizens to rescind old orders of
31. Congress enacted a range of protections that may be pursued affirmatively or in removal
barred federal officials from removing people to likely persecution or torture, in compliance
with the United States’ obligations under international treaties. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3);
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal years 1998 and 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277, §
2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231). Except for
8
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 9 of 22
people whose removal orders are reinstated, asylum remains available to those who are
eligible, regardless of any prior removal order, and can be pursued through multiple
following a removal order may also apply affirmatively for numerous other forms of relief,
including visas for victims of crimes and trafficking, id. § 1101(a)(15)(T), (U), temporary
protected status, id. § 1254a(a), and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status for noncitizens under
32. Congress has established that reentry into the United States without authorization is a crime
under certain circumstances. Section 1326 of Title 8 provides criminal penalties for
noncitizens who reenter the United States without authorization after entry of an order of
removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1326. A different section of the INA also provides criminal penalties for
a failure to comply with a federal order of removal. Id. § 1253 (“Penalties related to
removal”).
33. It is not a crime to reenter the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 if the person does so with
the consent of the U.S. government via a visa, parole, or other status. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2).
34. Prosecution for the federal reentry crime, the decision to pursue the removal of a given person
from the country, and the choice of which of the available removal processes to invoke, are
matters of federal discretion. Federal agents and policymakers may choose to deploy these
tools—or not—for a wide range of reasons, including national priorities, migration patterns,
S.F. 2340
35. On April 10, 2024, Governor Reynolds signed S.F. 2340 into law. The law goes into effect
on July 1, 2024.
9
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 10 of 22
36. S.F. 2340 creates two new criminal offenses: Illegal Reentry into State by Certain Aliens
(“State Illegal Reentry”); and Refusal to Comply With [State] Order to Return to Foreign
37. Each of these offenses apply to “[a] person who is an alien.” Iowa Code §§ 718C.2(1),
718C.5(1). “Alien” under S.F. 2340 is defined by reference to the INA, which in turn defines
an “alien” as any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Id. § 718C.1(1)
38. Iowa Code § 718C.2 defines State Illegal Reentry. Section 718C.2 makes it a criminal offense
when a noncitizen “enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in [Iowa] under any of
the following circumstances: a. The person has been denied admission to or has been
excluded, deported, or removed from the United States. b. The person has departed from the
39. S.F. 2340 defines “removal” to include an Iowa Order to Return to a foreign nation. Id.
§ 718C.2(3).
40. State Illegal Reentry is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in state
prison. Id. § 718C.2(2). Where an individual was previously removed after certain criminal
41. S.F. 2340 creates a new state judicial power to deport individuals from the United States.
Specifically, it authorizes state judges to issue “an order requiring [the defendant] to return to
the foreign nation from which the person entered or attempted to enter.” Id. § 718C.4(3), (4).
10
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 11 of 22
42. Following a conviction for State Illegal Reentry, the state judge must enter an “Order to
Return” to the foreign nation from which the person entered or attempted to enter. Id. §
718C.4(4). The order must identify: (a) “The manner of transportation of the person to a port
of entry[;]” and (b) “The law enforcement officer or state agency responsible for monitoring
43. The state Order to Return takes effect upon the completion of any sentence.
44. Alternatively, a state judge may enter an Order to Return at an individual’s initial appearance
following arrest for State Illegal Reentry in lieu of continuing the prosecution. After making
a determination that probable cause exists, a state judge may issue an Order to Return if the
individual agrees to the order and meets certain requirements. Id. § 718C.4(1)-(3).
45. Iowa Code § 718C.5 defines Refusal to Comply With [State] Order to Return to Foreign
Nation. S.F. 2340 makes it a class “C” felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, if a
person subject to an Order to Return fails to return to the foreign nation from which the person
46. S.F. 2340 does not provide for any defenses to State Illegal Reentry or Refusal to Comply
47. It is no defense to prosecution and removal under S.F. 2340 that the noncitizen currently has
48. It is no defense to prosecution and removal under S.F. 2340 that the noncitizen returned to
the United States after an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, with the consent of
49. The law specifically prohibits state authorities from abating prosecution for the new illegal
11
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 12 of 22
50. An amendment was proposed to the bill, which would have permitted the abatement of
prosecution if the federal government was in the process of determining the person’s
immigration status. Amendment S-5048 to S.F. 2340, 90th G.A., 2d Sess. (Iowa 2024),
amendment specifically applied to someone who “holds or is eligible” for a visa under the
Violence Against Women Act because they are a victim of domestic violence. Id. The
Amendment was defeated, with 17 senators voting for the amendment and 33 voting against.
Id.
51. S.F. 2340 creates a new state system to regulate immigration that completely bypasses and
conflicts with the federal system. It allows state officers to arrest, detain, and remove
individuals from the United States and mandates removal for those who are convicted of the
new state crimes, all without any direction, input, or involvement whatsoever from federal
officials.
52. S.F. 2340 requires state officers to make complex immigration determinations, such as
whether individuals have been deported, removed, excluded, or denied admission, and
whether they left while an order was outstanding—all without access to the necessary federal
documents and databases to do so. The law does not make any exception for people who
returned to the United States with federal consent, who later obtained immigration status upon
53. S.F. 2340 does not provide noncitizens with any of the mechanisms or pathways created by
Congress to apply for or receive federal protection from removal. Moreover, the system
12
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 13 of 22
prohibits state courts from abating prosecution while federal immigration proceedings take
place.
54. The law makes no exception for people who were removed, deported, excluded or denied
admission as children, or for children who voluntarily left the country with their families after
56. S.F. 2340 will lead to countless wrongful removals because it requires removal without
regard to the complex federal scheme for determining whether a person will be removed.
Lacking any of the humanitarian protections in federal law, S.F. 2340 will lead people to be
removed to countries where they face persecution and violence. And because it takes no
account of a person’s immigration status, S.F. 2340 will break up families and remove
individuals whom the federal government has expressly permitted to reenter the United
57. These harms will be felt acutely by Iowa MMJ’s members and clients. Iowa MMJ’s members
are subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and removal under S.F. 2340. The organization
currently represents more than 2,000 clients with diverse immigration histories, many of
whom are seeking or have obtained immigration status for which a prior removal is not a bar
– such as U visas, T visas, asylum, SIJS, and VAWA – and as a result many of Iowa MMJ’s
client members have been previously deported and would be subject to arrest and removal
58. One such client is Iowa MMJ member “Anna”. Anna is an eighteen-year-old high school
student from Honduras living with family in Iowa. Anna’s father was murdered and her older
sister kidnapped in Honduras. She first fled to the United States in September 2019 with her
13
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 14 of 22
mother and her sister when she was 14 years old. Federal immigration authorities arrested
Anna and her family at the U.S.-Mexico border and forced them to undergo removal
immigration judge ordered Anna and her mother removed in January 2020. In February 2020,
Anna returned to the United States from Mexico alone, again seeking protection. Federal
immigration authorities arrested Anna and sent her to a shelter for unaccompanied children
run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). In May 2020, ORR released Anna to
family living in the United States. Anna submitted an affirmative asylum application, which
was approved in March 2021. Anna is now a full-time high school student.
59. If S.F. 2340 goes into effect, Anna will be subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and removal
to Mexico. Anna is not a Mexican citizen and does not have family there, but she also cannot
return to Honduras, where her father was killed and where she faces persecution. In Mexico,
she would be vulnerable to cartel and gang violence. Anna would be separated from her
family, unable to graduate from her high school, and risk losing the opportunity to pursue her
chosen career path. Without a special travel document issued by federal immigration
authorities that authorizes individuals with asylee and refugee status to travel, she might also
have difficulty returning to the United States, even though her asylee status allows her to
travel abroad and live in the United States. Moreover, the experience of being arrested,
incarcerated, and removed for a second time would be extremely traumatic for Anna, who
60. Iowa MMJ member “David” was brought to the United States in 2000 by his mother when
he was just ten years old by crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection. His aunt –
his mother’s sister – was receiving cancer treatment and his mother wanted to help care for
14
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 15 of 22
her sister. David graduated from high school in Iowa in 2007, but he was deported in 2015.
He returned to the United States shortly after his removal in order to support his mother and
his sister, a U.S. citizen, who suffers from serious medical conditions. His mother and sister
continue to heavily rely on him for support – financial and otherwise. His longtime partner is
a U.S. citizen. Under S.F. 2340, he could be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, and removed,
leaving his mother and sister without needed support and separating him from his family.
61. Enforcement of S.F. 2340 will directly frustrate Plaintiff Iowa MMJ’s mission to provide
immigration legal services to residents of Iowa. S.F. 2340 will require Iowa MMJ to take on
new work, divesting time their staff would normally spend providing the organization’s core
legal services. This diversion of work would, in turn, impact their grant funding that requires
62. The new law will require Iowa MMJ staff to change their client intake process to screen each
prospective client for possible prosecution under S.F. 2340. Reviewing the impact of a new
state scheme, in addition to the federal scheme, on prospective clients, will make each case
more time-consuming. Further, based on past experience, Iowa MMJ expects that many
prospective clients will not recall all of their interactions with immigration authorities or fully
prospective clients’ cases Iowa MMJ will have to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests for their complete immigration files to various federal agencies and review those
records before the organization can assess whether to provide representation. The process of
63. Iowa MMJ will also be harmed by the time-consuming process of reviewing the files of all
existing clients – a docket of over 2,000 individuals – many of whom have had applications
15
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 16 of 22
for immigration status pending for years. This divergence of resources will again pull staff
time away from the organization’s core legal work and existing grant deliverables.
64. Additionally, Iowa MMJ will necessarily need to change the way it represents clients subject
to prosecution under S.F. 2340. Clients with pending immigration applications will risk
having those applications deemed abandoned if they are forced to leave the United States or
depart without advance parole (a form of permission to travel) from immigration authorities.
The organization will need to pivot resources to submitting requests to expedite pending
benefit applications and filing advance parole applications, which usually take about one year
to adjudicate.
65. Iowa MMJ staff will also need to learn how to work with clients in Iowa jails or prisons,
which is work the organization does not currently engage in. This will require Iowa MMJ
staff to learn the state criminal court process and carceral system to adapt representation to
the criminal adjudication timeline and gain access to clients in state custody.
66. Iowa MMJ’s staff must also become educated on the federal immigration consequences of a
conviction under S.F. 2340, because state criminal convictions can bar many forms of federal
immigration relief. Iowa MMJ staff will also need to work closely with their clients’ criminal
defense attorneys to ensure they mount an effective defense under this new law.
67. S.F. 2340 will also impact Iowa MMJ’s grant-funded work assisting victims of crime and
to cooperate with local law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the perpetrator.
Once local law enforcement begins enforcing S.F. 2340, immigrant victims of crime and
trafficking will likely be afraid to work with local law enforcement, which in turn will
interfere with Iowa MMJ’s ability to assist them in pursuing U and T visas. If fewer immigrant
16
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 17 of 22
victims come forward because of fear of local law enforcement, Iowa MMJ may not be able
68. In addition to the harmful effects S.F. 2340 will have on Iowa MMJ’s provision of legal
services, the new law will hinder Iowa MMJ’s advocacy work by taking time away from their
current work. Iowa MMJ’s advocacy team has already devoted significant resources to
oppose the enactment of S.F. 2340 and to respond to the fear and confusion it has generated
69. As soon as S.F. 2340 passed, Iowa MMJ expanded its efforts to educate the community about
its consequences. Iowa MMJ staff members have led both virtual and in-person community
meetings with approximately 50-80 attendees at each event. The organization is building a
70. Iowa MMJ’s advocacy team’s work has also been hindered by responding to constant
questions from its members and the community about S.F. 2340 and what they should do in
response. The organization has created fact sheets and one-page summaries of the law and
has been widely distributing Know Your Rights (KYR) materials. Iowa MMJ has frequently
shared information through traditional and social media. All of this work is diverting time
71. The mistrust of local law enforcement that will result from S.F. 2340 will affect several of
Iowa MMJ’s campaigns, including its outreach campaign to workers about the possibility of
obtaining protection through a new federal program, Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement
(DALE), which is intended to protect immigrant workers from deportation while they
participate in labor law violation investigations. The mistrust with local law enforcement will
17
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 18 of 22
72. The mistrust of law enforcement will also have a chilling effect on Iowa MMJ’s work with
local law enforcement to create community IDs, which help immigrants and others who are
not eligible for state IDs to better integrate into their communities. As a result of S.F. 2340,
immigrant community members will likely hesitate to obtain these IDs if they become
73. Once S.F. 2340 goes into effect on July 1, Iowa MMJ will also need to expand its KYR work
significantly. Under this new law, local law enforcement will be authorized to arrest
noncitizens based solely on their immigration history and thus the immigrant community will
become a target.
74. This work to counteract the harms caused by S.F. 2340 will take the Iowa MMJ advocacy
team staff away from their traditional community outreach activities. Iowa MMJ’s advocacy
staff will also have to step back from their grassroots leadership development work, efforts
regarding workers’ rights violations, one-on-one meetings with advocates, and civics
engagement activities with new citizens. As a result, S.F. 2340 will undermine Iowa MMJ’s
75. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a 68-year-old widow, lawful permanent resident, mother of five children
and grandmother of seventeen grandchildren, most of whom reside in Iowa. Doe has
experienced anxiety and fear that she will be removed under S.F. 2340 and separated from
her family. Doe spent nearly 20 years in Mexico after being removed in 2005, while she
awaited federal authorization to return to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.
Now that she has returned to the United States and reunified with her family, Doe deeply
18
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 19 of 22
76. Doe also has concerns about her physical health, as she suffers from hypertension and
diabetes. Since returning to the United States in 2022, her health has been stable, largely due
to having her family nearby to care for her. Doe worries that the anxiety and her fear of
deportation under S.F. 2340 will exacerbate her hypertension and diabetes and negatively
77. Plaintiff Elizabeth Roe is a 40-year-old lawful permanent resident who resides in Des
Moines, Iowa, with her U.S. citizen husband. Roe first came to the United States in 2016 to
reunite with her two U.S. citizen brothers and was deported in 2017. She married her U.S.
citizen husband in 2018 and waited five years for her immediate relative visa petition and
inadmissibility waiver to be approved by the federal government. In 2023, she reentered the
United States as a lawful permanent resident and now lives in Des Moines with her
husband.
78. After waiting several years to reenter the United States as a lawful permanent resident, Roe
fears being arrested, incarcerated, prosecuted, and deported to Colombia under S.F. 2340. She
has made a life here in Iowa with her U.S. citizen husband and has a steady job at Amazon.
She worries that the life she has worked so hard to build here in Iowa will be shattered if she
79. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[t]his
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof,
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
19
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 20 of 22
80. Federal law preempts state law in any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has
81. S.F. 2340 violates the Supremacy Clause because it attempts to regulate matters that are
exclusively reserved to the federal government and because it operates in a field over which
82. S.F. 2340 further violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with federal laws,
contradicts federal admission, release, and immigration status decisions, imposes burdens and
penalties not authorized by and contrary to federal law, creates its own immigration
classifications, and directs state officers to take unilateral immigration enforcement actions.
84. The Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States.” U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3. The Commerce Clause not
only gives Congress this power, but also bars states from interfering with Congress’s
85. S.F. 2340 violates the Commerce Clause because it impermissibly regulates people’s entry
into the United States and their movement across state borders. It therefore prevents the
United States from speaking with one voice on matters of foreign commerce, and it imposes
20
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 21 of 22
d. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.
Emma Winger*
Katherine Melloy Goettel*
Michelle Lapointe*
Suchita Mathur*
Gianna Borroto*
1331 G St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 507-7512
[email protected];
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Spencer Amdur*
Cody Wofsy*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
21
Case 4:24-cv-00161-SHL-SBJ Document 1 Filed 05/09/24 Page 22 of 22
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: (415) 343-0770
F: (415) 395-0950
[email protected]
[email protected]
Anand Balakrishnan*
Wafa Junaid*
Noor Zafar*
Omar Jadwat*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 549-2660
F: (212) 549-2654
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
22