The United States Department of Justice Sues State of Oklahoma on Immigration Law
The United States brings this action to preserve its exclusive authority under federal law to regulate the entry, reentry, and presence of noncitizens.
April 23, 2024 | 04:27pm
Sen. Woods Releases Statement on Oklahoma House Bill HB 4156
OKLAHOMA CITY – Sen. Tom Woods, R-Westville, today released the following statement after he voted in favor of passing House Bill 4156 that aims to crack down on illegal immigration in Oklahoma.
“I am proud to have taken this vote that will better protect Oklahomans and crack down on illegal immigration in our state,” Sen. Woods said. “The failed border policies by the federal government have made it necessary for states to take the law into their own hands and craft policies to ensure we know who is coming here and eliminate criminal organizations. The influx of illegal immigration has created a dire situation, and we are seeing an increased amount of illegal marijuana grows, drugs and organized criminal activity that needs to be eradicated. This bill will give law enforcement the tools necessary to deport criminals.”
To read House Bill 4156, click here.
The Department of Justice infers Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156 (HB 4156), like Texas’s preliminarily enjoined Senate Bill 4 and Iowa’s recently enacted Senate File 2340, impermissibly creates a state- specific immigration system that effectively seeks to regulate noncitizens’ entry, reentry, and presence in the United States.
“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of [noncitizens].” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012). Indeed, “the regulation of [noncitizens] is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the [S]tate also acts on the same subject,” the state law must give way. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66 (1941). Congress has established a comprehensive scheme governing noncitizens’ entry and reentry into the United States—including penalties for unlawful entry and reentry, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325, 1326—and removal from the country. HB 4156 intrudes on that scheme, frustrates the United States’ immigration operations, and interferes with U.S. foreign relations. It is preempted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. HB 4156 also violates the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause, which limits the power of the States to regulate the international movement of persons. Accordingly, the United States seeks a declaration invalidating, and an order enjoining the enforcement of, HB 4156
.
The Department of Justice as Plaintiff (United States) seeks remedies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, and 2202.
Under the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution and federal immigration laws, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is “the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Through the Supremacy Clause, state laws may be preempted in various ways.
Congress has established an integrated framework governing the entry of noncitizens into the United States. It has identified who may enter. Congress has also imposed federal criminal penalties on noncitizens who unlawfully enter or reenter the United States. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1325, titled “Improper entry by [noncitizens],” states that “[a]ny [noncitizen] who . . . enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both,”
Moreover, Congress has established an enforcement apparatus to address unlawful entry and reentry into the United States. For example, CBP, “in coordination with” ICE and USCIS, is tasked with “enforc[ing] and administer[ing] all immigration laws,” including “the inspection, processing, and admission of persons who seek to enter . . . the United States” and “the detection [and] interdiction ... of persons unlawfully entering, or who have recently unlawfully entered, the United States.” 6 U.S.C. § 211(c)(8). And U.S. Border Patrol has “primary responsibility for interdicting persons attempting to illegally enter . . . the United States . . . at a place other than a designated port of entry.” Id. § 211(e)(3).
Federal law also gives DHS “the power and duty to control and guard” the border against illegal entry and to “perform such other acts as . . . necessary for carrying out [such] authority.” In doing so, immigration officers enforce prohibitions on unlawful entry.
Congress has also comprehensively regulated the removal of noncitizens. Federal law specifies the grounds for removal, the requirements for commencing and administering removal proceedings, the protections afforded to noncitizens throughout the process, and the process for selecting the country to which noncitizens may be removed.
The United States claims “By imposing criminal penalties and immigration consequences on noncitizens based on their entry or reentry into, or presence in, the United States, HB 4156 will interfere with the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign relations.” Mexico has already expressed concern about HB 4156. Further, HB 4156 risks undermining the United States’ international partnerships dedicated to reducing irregular migration throughout North and Central America. And it risks exposing United States citizens to reciprocal or retaliatory treatment.
Further, by permitting state officials to effectively exile noncitizens from the State risks international controversy and possible retaliation against United States citizens in foreign countries.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The United States respectfully requests that this Court:
a) Declare that HB 4156 violates the Supremacy Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause and is therefore invalid;
b) Preliminarily or permanently enjoin Defendants—as well as their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any other persons in active concert or participation with those individuals—from enforcing HB 4156;
c) Award the United States its costs in this action; and
d) Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
The United States v. The State of Oklahoma link. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1352816/dl?inline
SUPREME COURT REMAIN IN MEXICO DECISION
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Biden Administration has the right to end a Trump-era immigration policy that forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their cases make their way through U.S. immigration courts. The Supreme Court also ruled that the government’s cancellation of the Migrant Protection Protocols MMP, and also called “remain in Mexico,” did not violate a section of immigration law that Texas and Missouri had used to argue that the Biden Administration illegally ended the program.
The Supreme Court ruled “We now turn to the merits. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) pro- vides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States. The Secretary may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring with the Court wrote “DHS may choose to return noncitizens to Mexico. 8 U. S. C. §1225(b)(2)(C). Consistent with that statutory authority, the prior Administration chose to return a relatively small group of noncitizens to Mexico.” Supreme Court ruling attached. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
President Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy stated “The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) are a U.S. Government (USG) action whereby citizens and nationals of countries other than Mexico arriving in the United States by land from Mexico -- whether or not at a port of entry -- may be returned to Mexico pursuant to Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) while their U.S. removal proceedings are pending under Section 240 of the INA. The Government of Mexico (GOM) has committed to provide aliens placed into MPP with appropriate humanitarian protections, including immigration documentation and access to education, healthcare and employment.”
President Trump’s “MPP policy was designed to “help restore a safe and orderly immigration process, decrease the number of those taking advantage of the immigration system, and the ability of smugglers and traffickers to prey on vulnerable populations, and reduce threats to life, national security, and public safety, while ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the protections they need.”
Kavanaugh clarified “when there is insufficient detention capacity and the President chooses the parole option because he determines that returning noncitizens to Mexico is not feasible for foreign-policy reasons, a court applying State Farm must be deferential to the President’s Article II foreign-policy judgment. Nothing in the relevant immigration statutes at issue here suggests that Congress wanted the Federal Judiciary to improperly second-guess the President’s Article II judgment with respect to American foreign policy and foreign relations.
PRESIDENT TRUMP REMAIN IN MEXICO POLICY |
”In conclusion, the Biden administration has the authority to implement President Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy but refuses to do so. Todd Bensman from The Center of Immigration Studies reports “Since March 2022 the foreign-born population has increased 5.1 million, the largest two-year increase in American history. The population has never grown this much this fast. Less than half of those who arrived since 2022 are employed.”
Furthermore, the United States is experiencing a shortage of single family homes and affordable rental units “Moody’s Analytics in January 2024, outlined the increase in new single family home construction has not filled the shortfall “housing stock coming online in particular over the past two years, Moody’s Analytics estimates that there is still a total housing deficit of 1.5-2 million units with a shortfall of 1.1-1.2 million single-family housing units.”
“The National Low Income Housing Committee reports “NLIHC released today its annual report, The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes. Every year, the Gap report investigates the severe shortage of affordable rental homes available to extremely low-income families and individuals nationwide and in every state and metropolitan area. This year’s Gap finds that the lowest-income renters in the U.S. face a shortage of 7.3 million affordable and available rental homes.”
Where are all the people going to live when we have a 7.3 million shortfall in affordable rental units and a 1.2 million gap in single family family home construction? This is especially concerning since some experts suggest since President Biden took office a total of 10 - 15 million illegal aliens have entered the United States. Apparently, based on the Department of Justice lawsuit which is seeking an injunction in order to stop Oklahoma House Bill HB 4156, the Biden Administration wants the illegal alien invasion to go forward unabated. At the same time, the Biden Administration has every authority to implement Remain in Mexico but refuses to do so.