Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: BENTON, Circuit Judge.
• Citation: Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, 157 F.4th 904 (8th Cir. 2025)
• Docket Number: 24-2263
• Decision Date: 23 October 2025
• Parties: IOWA MIGRANT MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE; Jane Doe; Elizabeth Roe Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Brenna BIRD, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Iowa Defendant - Appellant Kimberly Graham; Zach Herrmann Defendants Immigration Reform Law Institute; State of Oklahoma; State of Florida; State of Alabama; State of Alaska; State of Arkansas; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Mississippi; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of Ohio; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Tennessee; State of Texas; State of Virginia; State of West Virginia; Arizona Legislature Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s) ASISTA Immigration Assistance; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; Esperanza United; Tahirih Justice Center Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s)

157 F.4th 904

IOWA MIGRANT MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE; Jane Doe; Elizabeth Roe Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Brenna BIRD, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Iowa Defendant - AppellantKimberly Graham; Zach Herrmann DefendantsImmigration Reform Law Institute; State of Oklahoma;State of Florida; State of Alabama; State of Alaska;State of Arkansas; State of Georgia; State of Idaho;State of Indiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana;State of Mississippi; State of Missouri; State of Montana;State of Nebraska; State of Ohio; State of South Carolina;State of South Dakota; State of Tennessee;State of Texas; State of Virginia; State of West Virginia;Arizona Legislature Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)ASISTA Immigration Assistance;American Immigration Lawyers Association;Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; Esperanza United;Tahirih Justice Center Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s)

No. 24-2263

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted: August 28, 2025

Filed: October 23, 2025

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

Counsel who represented the appellant were Patrick Cannon Valencia, AAG, of Des Moines, IA., Eric H. Wessan, AAG, of Des Moines, IA., and Breanne Alyssa Stoltze, AAG, of Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Michelle R. Lapointe, of Washington, DC., Rita N. Bettis Austen, of Des Moines, IA., Thomas Dillon Story, of Des Moines, IA., Shefali Aurora, of Des Moines, IA., Suchita D. Mathur, of Washington, DC., and Emma Curtis Winger, of Washington, DC.

The following attorney(s) appeared on the amicus brief of Arizona Legislature, State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arkansas, State of Florida, State of Georgia, State of Idaho, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Montana, State of Nebraska, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Tennessee, State of Texas, State of Virginia and State of West Virginia in support of the appellant; Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, AAG, of Tallahassee, FL., Garry M. Gaskins, II, AAG, of Oklahoma City, OK., Nathan A. Forrester, AAG, of Tallahassee, FL., Robert S. Schenck, AAG, of Tallahassee, FL, Zachary Paul West, AAG, of Oklahoma City, OK., and Cullen D. Sweeney, AAG, of Oklahoma City, OK.

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Iowa, in Senate File 2340, criminalized the presence within its boundaries of aliens who illegally reentered the United States. Aliens violating this Act are ordered to return to the country they reentered from. The Act forbids judges from abating a state prosecution due to a pending (or possible) federal determination of the alien's immigration status. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice and two aliens residing in Iowa sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act. The district court¹ granted a preliminary injunction. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this court affirms.

I.

In section 2 of the Act, Iowa forbids a "person who is an alien" to enter, attempt to enter, or at any time be found within the state "under any of the following circumstances": having been "denied admission to or . . . excluded, deported, or removed from the United States"; or having "departed from the United State while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding." Iowa Code § 718C.2(1)(a), (b). See § 718.1(1) (section 1, defining "alien" by reference to federal immigration law). Violation is at least an "aggravated misdemeanor." § 718C.2(2).

If an alien is convicted of violating section 2, then section 4 of the Act provides that a judge "shall enter in the judgment in the case an order requiring the person to return to the foreign nation from which the person entered or attempted to enter." § 718C.4(4). Regardless, during an alien's prosecution under the Act, a judge may order return rather than continuing with the prosecution if the alien consents and other provisions are satisfied (i.e., the alien has not previously been convicted or ordered to return under the Act, the alien is not charged with another offense punishable as at least an aggravated misdemeanor, and the arresting officer has collected all available identifying information and cross-referenced it with relevant databases to determine if the alien poses a threat to national security). § 718C.4(3). The order to return must include the manner of transportation to "a port of entry" and the "law enforcement officer or state agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the order." § 718C.4(5).

Section 5 of the Act creates a separate offense for failure to comply with the return order. § 718C.5. Section 6 of the Act provides that a court "may not abate the prosecution of an offense under this chapter on the basis that a federal determination regarding the immigration status of the person is pending or will be initiated." § 718C.6.

II.

Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe, two aliens residing in Iowa, claim to be harmed by the Act. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), a membership-based organization, provides legal services and advocates about immigration issues. Its members include Doe and Roe, as well as about 350 dues-paying members and 2,000 non-dues-paying members who are clients or from immigrant communities. Iowa MMJ identifies two specific members, Anna and David. Doe, Roe, and Iowa MMJ sued Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, Polk County Attorney Kimberly Graham, and Clayton County Attorney Zach Herrmann. Doe, Roe, and Iowa MMJ challenged the Act on its face, alleging that it violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. They moved for a preliminary injunction against enforcing the Act.

The district court ruled that Doe, Roe, David, and Iowa MMJ had standing to sue to enjoin the Act. Considering the Dataphase factors, the court found that they "established a likelihood of success on the merits of their position that federal immigration law preempts Senate File 2340 under both conflict and field preemption." United States v. Iowa, 737 F.Supp.3d 725, 751 (S.D. Iowa 2024). The court also found irreparable harm if the Act went into effect, adding that the balance of the equities and the public interest favored an injunction. Id. at 749-50. See generally Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The district court granted the preliminary injunction. Bird appeals.

This court reviews decisions on preliminary injunctions for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Sleep No. Corp. v. Young., 33 F.4th 1012, 1016 (8th Cir. 2022). A district court "by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).

III.

A federal court must first decide whether plaintiffs have standing. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071, 1076 (8th Cir. 2024). This court reviews de novo whether a party has standing. Dakotans for Health v. Noem, 52 F.4th 381, 385 (8th Cir. 2022). Plaintiffs have the burden to establish standing. Animal Legal Defense Fund, 89 F.4th at 1077. To have standing, a plaintiff must show it suffered an injury in fact, fairly traceable to the defendant, and likely redressable by a favorable decision of the court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). Only one plaintiff needs standing for a case to proceed. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 489, 143 S.Ct. 2355, 216 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2023). A plaintiff must support each element "with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of litigation." Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 58, 144 S.Ct. 1972, 219 L.Ed.2d 604 (2024). "At the preliminary injunction stage, then, a plaintiff must make a 'clear showing' that she is 'likely' to establish each element of standing." Id. At the preliminary injunction stage, this court assumes the plaintiff's allegations are true and views them most favorably to the plaintiff. GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force v. Reynolds, 114 F.4th 660, 667 (8th Cir. 2024).

A.

"Government regulations that require or forbid some action by the plaintiff almost invariably satisfy both the injury in fact and causation requirements. So in those cases, standing is usually easy to establish." FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 382, 144 S.Ct. 1540, 219 L.Ed.2d 121 (2024). Also, "allegation of future injury may suffice" to show an injury-in-fact "if the threatened injury is 'certainly impending,' or there is a 'substantial risk' that the harm will occur." L.H. v. Independence Sch. Dist., 111 F.4th 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2024). Both Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe reside in Iowa. In 2005, Jane Doe was denied admission to the United States and issued a removal order. Later, her removal order was waived and she obtained lawful permanent resident status, reentering the United States. Elizabeth Roe was deported in 2017. Later, her prior removal order was waived and she reentered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. If subject to the Act, they each face a fine of at least $855.00 or up to two years in prison, or both, and being ordered to return to the country from which they entered the United States. §§ 718C.2(2), 903.1(2), 718C.4(4). An "injury in fact exists when the plaintiffs allege 'an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.' " Alexis Bailly Vineyard, Inc. v. Harrington, 931 F.3d 774, 778 (8th Cir. 2019). Here, Doe and Roe intend to remain in Iowa. This conduct is "arguably affected with a constitutional interest" because the Act criminalizing their presence in Iowa is arguably preempted by federal law, under the Supremacy Clause. Cf. I...