<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/state-immigration-crime-laws/</id>
  <title>State immigration-crime laws: Texas S.B. 4 and Iowa S.F. 2340 · Passim litigation</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/state-immigration-crime-laws/"/>
  <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <author><name>Passim</name></author>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-10-19-1aaae3ec31</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Supreme Court requested Solicitor General's views on Iowa petition</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-10-19T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in No. 26-49. The order does not grant certiorari or change the injunction against Iowa's law.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-10-13-d3a46af820</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Supreme Court distributed Iowa petition for October 16 conference</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html"/>
    <updated>2026-10-13T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The official docket records distribution for the October 16, 2026 conference after October 8 rescheduling. This is a scheduling entry, not a grant or denial of certiorari.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-10-08-ba3ee8a327</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Supreme Court rescheduled Iowa state-enforcement petition</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html"/>
    <updated>2026-10-08T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Supreme Court docket marks the petition rescheduled after its October 5 distribution for the October 9 conference. It does not list a replacement conference date or grant or deny review.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-10-05-b2eb91935d</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Supreme Court distributed Iowa petition for October 9 conference</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html"/>
    <updated>2026-10-05T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The official docket records distribution for the October 9, 2026 conference following September 28 rescheduling; the petition remains pending.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-09-28-3091009bd9</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Supreme Court rescheduled Iowa petition</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html"/>
    <updated>2026-09-28T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The official docket records the petition as rescheduled after its earlier conference distribution; it does not record a grant or denial.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice/#2026-07-02-523757b66f</id>
    <title>Brenna Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice: Iowa sought Supreme Court review of state illegal-reentry injunction</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-49/415596/20260702131941621_No.%2025-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-07-02T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The petition raises pre-enforcement standing and federal preemption of Iowa's SF 2340 state illegal-reentry law.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/state-immigration-crime-laws/#status-2026-05-29-partly_blocked</id>
    <title>State immigration-crime laws: Texas S.B. 4 and Iowa S.F. 2340: In force in Texas; Iowa injunction affirmed</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/state-immigration-crime-laws/"/>
    <updated>2026-05-29T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>Fifth Circuit stayed the L.M.L. injunction of S.B. 4 pending appeal; Iowa's injunction remained in place</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin/#2026-05-29-11a8548d19</id>
    <title>L.M.L. v. Martin: Fifth Circuit stayed S.B. 4 injunction pending appeal</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-05-29T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A Fifth Circuit panel granted Director Martin's opposed motion to stay the May 14 preliminary injunction pending appeal; Judge Southwick would have denied the motion.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin/#2026-05-14-a58c96ef75</id>
    <title>L.M.L. v. Martin: Western District of Texas granted preliminary injunction against key S.B. 4 provisions</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663.55.0_1.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-05-14T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the reentry crime, state removal-order machinery, refusal-to-comply crime, and no-abatement rule for the named plaintiffs and provisional class.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin/#2026-05-14-16a711b1e6</id>
    <title>L.M.L. v. Martin: Western District of Texas preliminarily enjoined key S.B. 4 provisions</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/05/2026.05.14.d-ORDER.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-05-14T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The district court enjoined enforcement of the reentry crime, state removal-order machinery, refusal-to-comply crime, and no-abatement rule for the named plaintiffs and provisional class.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin/#2026-05-04-61bee00cd1</id>
    <title>L.M.L. v. Martin: Noncitizen plaintiffs filed follow-on S.B. 4 class action</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663.1.0.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-05-04T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The new complaint was filed by noncitizen plaintiffs seeking to cure the standing problem identified by the en banc Fifth Circuit and block S.B. 4 provisions before the May 15 effective date.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin/#2026-04-24-8fd9249e84</id>
    <title>L.M.L. v. Martin: En banc Fifth Circuit vacated prior S.B. 4 injunction on standing grounds</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.441.0.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-04-24T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The en banc Fifth Circuit vacated the earlier S.B. 4 preliminary injunction because the remaining organizational and county plaintiffs lacked standing, without reaching the preemption merits.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/ca5-24-50149-united-states-v-texas/#2026-04-24-bd72466586</id>
    <title>United States v. Texas: En banc Fifth Circuit vacated S.B. 4 injunction</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.441.0.pdf"/>
    <updated>2026-04-24T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The en banc court held that the remaining nonprofit and county plaintiffs lacked standing and vacated the preliminary injunction without addressing the preemption merits.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/ca5-24-50149-united-states-v-texas/#2025-07-03-a7b4fca67f</id>
    <title>United States v. Texas: Fifth Circuit panel affirmed S.B. 4 injunction</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.280.1.pdf"/>
    <updated>2025-07-03T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A divided panel affirmed the preliminary injunction, but the ruling was later vacated when the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://passimai.com/litigation/cases/ca5-24-50149-united-states-v-texas/#2024-02-29-a50386d2a2</id>
    <title>United States v. Texas: District court preliminarily enjoined S.B. 4</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172770230/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172770230.42.0_5.pdf"/>
    <updated>2024-02-29T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The Western District of Texas blocked enforcement of S.B. 4 after concluding the plaintiffs were likely to show that the state immigration-enforcement law was preempted.</summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
