Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge

Yahoo

a day ago

Oklahoma can't enforce a controversial state immigration law while a related lawsuit works its way through court, a federal judge in Oklahoma City has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones issued the injunction Tuesday, June 3, weeks after he had issued a similar, but shorter-term, order in the case. The lawsuit centers on a 2024 law known as House Bill 4156, which would let state courts prosecute people for the crime of "impermissible occupation."
Civil rights groups want the court to throw out the law as unconstitutional. They contend the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate immigration. Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond has countered that Oklahoma should be allowed to enforce the law.
Jones said in his ruling that while Oklahoma officials may have understandable concerns about the impacts of undocumented immigration, the federal government has the sole right to control immigration law.
"In the end, that is why H.B. 4156 must fail — not to excuse unlawful presence or shield criminal conduct, but because it is what the Constitution demands," Jones wrote.
Jones was nominated to the bench in 2019 by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term in office. Trump has made clamping down on illegal immigration a key focus of his second term.
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. sued Oklahoma in 2024 in an attempt to block HB 4156 from taking effect. But federal prosecutors dropped out of the case after Trump took office. The government's exit put the case in legal limbo.
In May, several plaintiffs, including the ACLU, revived the legal challenge to the law and asked a judge to put it on hold until the lawsuit worked its way through court.
Jones granted that request, writing that he was unconvinced by arguments that Oklahoma has any power to enforce state-level immigration laws.
"The federal government retains, as it always has, 'broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,'" Jones wrote, citing a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. "And noncitizens who violate federal immigration law—whether in Oklahoma or elsewhere—remain subject to that authority, if and when the federal government chooses to act."
Noor Zafar, an attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the groups suing to block the law were grateful for Jones' decision to put the law on hold. 'Every single day that HB 4156 is in effect, it puts immigrants in Oklahoma at tremendous risk,' Zafar said in a statement.
Drummond, who has been a vocal supporter of the law, did not immediately respond to a request sent to a spokesperson for comment on the injunction. He had previously accused the court of 'protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences' after Jones issued a temporary restraining order in the case.
Oklahoma's HB 4156: What to know about state's paused immigration law, Trump policies
Drummond's office also had asked Jones to block two plaintiffs from suing under the fictitious names of Barbara Boe and Christopher Coe, rather than their legal names. Court filings described Boe as a 51-year-old Mexican national who lives in Tulsa and Coe as a 37-year-old Mexican national who lives in Broken Bow. They had argued that using their real names would open them up to law enforcement scrutiny.
Jones agreed, saying it would "effectively place a target on their backs simply for seeking judicial review" of a state law that they claim is unconstitutional. He pushed back against the state's argument that allowing Boe and Coe to use pseudonyms would protect "federal lawbreakers from the federal consequences of their actions." He described that argument as a mischaracterization that did not "move the needle."
"After all, this case concerns a state immigration law, and the federal government stands in no better — or worse position to prosecute or remove plaintiffs for federal immigration violations by virtue of their pseudonymity," Jones wrote.
If HB 4156 is ultimately allowed to go into effect, the law would establish the misdemeanor crime of "impermissible occupation," with punishment being up to one year in a county jail, a $500 fine or both. Any subsequent convictions would trigger felony charges and the possibility of spending two years in state prison or paying a $1,000 fine.
People convicted of impermissible occupation would be forced to leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of being released.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma's controversial anti-immigration law HB 4156 halted again