Latest news with #H.B.4156
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge
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
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Enforcement of Oklahoma immigration law blocked indefinitely
Protestors at a Hispanic Cultural Day rally outside the Oklahoma State Capitol on May 15, 2024, hold flags representing the United States, Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. Hundreds gathered to protest the newly enacted House Bill 4156, which created the criminal offense of impermissible occupation. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City federal judge this week placed an indefinite ban on enforcement of a state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants living in Oklahoma. The decision from U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones extends the two-week hold he implemented for House Bill 4156 on May 20 to last until he makes a final ruling on a lawsuit challenging the statute. HB 4156, enacted last year, created the state crime of 'impermissible occupation,' threatening fines and jail time for immigrants living in Oklahoma without legal residency. Past rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and judges across the country have made clear that immigration enforcement is the federal government's responsibility, not an individual state's, Jones wrote in his decision issued Tuesday. Federal law preempts state laws on the issue, rendering Oklahoma's new statute unenforceable, the judge decided. '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. Oklahoma still has the power to prosecute U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike for crimes that might stem from unlawful immigration, the judge said. Attorney General Gentner Drummond had contended HB 4156 helps law enforcement stop drug trafficking and other crimes. Drummond called Jones' previous two-week hold 'outrageous,' 'perverse' and 'contrary to the rule of law.' 'The attorney general is committed to ensuring the state has the agency to protect Oklahomans,' Drummond's spokesperson, Phil Bacharach, said Thursday. 'HB 4156 is a commonsense and necessary law and Oklahoma must be able to enforce it.' Jones blocked enforcement of the law for nine months last year after former President Joe Biden's Administration filed a lawsuit. The ban lifted when President Donald Trump withdrew Biden's case. Two undocumented residents of Oklahoma and two immigrant-focused organizations based in the state refiled the lawsuit last month, contending HB 4156 is unconstitutional. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tulsa law firm Rivas & Associates are representing the plaintiffs. 'Once again, the court has made it clear that the state of Oklahoma may not enforce HB 4156 while our litigation proceeds,' ACLU of Oklahoma legal director Megan Lambert said. 'People who are immigrants join the long American tradition of coming here in search of a better life and the freedom and opportunity we offer. Anti-immigrant policies do not represent our state, and we are grateful for the relief this provides while we continue to fight for the rights and safety of Oklahoma's immigrant communities.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court pauses controversial Oklahoma immigration law that adds 'impermissible occupation' charge
A federal judge has agreed to temporarily block Oklahoma from enforcing a controversial immigration law that allows state prosecutors to charge people with "impermissible occupation" if they are in the U.S. without authorization. U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones in Oklahoma City issued the order on Tuesday, May 20, saying it will expire in 14 days, 'unless extended for good cause or dissolved or modified sooner.' Enforcement of the law, passed in 2024, had been delayed by federal lawsuits that argued Oklahoma lawmakers exceeded their authority by trying to regulate immigration, which is considered a matter of federal law. But in March, after Republican Donald Trump replaced Democrat Joe Biden as president, the federal government dropped its legal challenge to the law. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups filed an amended complaint to renew their challenges to the law on May 13, asking for a temporary restraining order, which Jones granted. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who supports enforcement of the state law, immediately issued a statement decrying Jones' ruling, calling it outrageous that the state is again blocked from enforcing the new law. 'In the name of federal law, the court is protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences,' Drummond said. 'This is perverse, contrary to the rule of law, and we will be evaluating all options for challenging the ruling. In his ruling, Jones acknowledged the complaints from the law's supporters, saying their 'frustrations are not lost' on him. 'But those concerns, however pressing, cannot override the constitutional design,' Jones wrote. 'When determining whether a state law like H.B. 4156 is preempted, the Supreme Court instructs courts like this one to look to the intent of Congress, not the enforcement priorities of any particular administration. Doing so, and based on the comprehensive and exhaustive immigration framework that Congress designed, the Court is left with one conclusion: H.B. 4156 must fail.' The ACLU didn't immediately issue a public statement about Jones' ruling. If allowed to go back 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 and/or 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: Federal judge pauses controversial Oklahoma immigration law HB 4156
