BLOCKED: 5 Key Facts About The Idaho Immigration Law (HB 83) Halted By A Federal Judge

The state of Idaho’s attempt to create its own immigration enforcement framework has been decisively blocked by a federal court, marking a significant legal victory for civil rights groups and a major setback for state-level border security initiatives. As of December 2025, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford has issued a sweeping, class-wide preliminary injunction against the core provisions of Idaho’s controversial House Bill 83 (HB 83), also known as the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act (ICE Act). This ruling ensures that the law, which sought to empower local police to arrest and charge individuals for state-level immigration crimes, cannot be enforced while the legal battle continues.

The injunction stems from the lawsuit *Idaho Organization of Resource Councils (IORC) v. Labrador*, which argues that the state law is unconstitutional because it illegally attempts to supersede the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration policy. This high-stakes litigation pits the State of Idaho, led by Attorney General Raúl Labrador, against a coalition of immigrant rights and community organizations, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for other states seeking to enact similar legislation. The current block is not a final ruling, but it indicates the court's strong belief that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits of their case.

The Controversial Idaho Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act (HB 83)

Idaho’s House Bill 83, passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Brad Little, was designed to introduce a new chapter to the Idaho Code, effectively creating state-level immigration offenses. The bill was immediately met with legal challenges from groups like the ACLU of Idaho, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Idaho Organization of Resource Councils (IORC).

• The Enduring Legacy Of Haylor 5 Shocking Facts About Harry Styles And Taylor Swifts Relationship 10 Years Later Sf662

The primary aim of the legislation was to allow local and state law enforcement agencies to take on roles traditionally reserved for federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Key Provisions of HB 83 That Were Blocked

The preliminary injunction specifically targeted the most contentious elements of the ICE Act. These provisions were seen as a direct challenge to the established balance of power between state and federal governments on immigration matters.

• State-Level Crimes for Entry/Reentry: HB 83 sought to criminalize the act of "illegal entry" or "reentry" into Idaho by individuals who had previously been deported or ordered removed from the U.S. This created a new state misdemeanor offense.
• Secondary Offense Enforcement: The law was structured to allow local police to arrest individuals suspected of these new state crimes, primarily as a secondary offense during routine stops or investigations.
• Mandate for Local Police: The legislation intended to mandate a greater level of cooperation and enforcement from local law enforcement, compelling them to investigate and detain individuals based on their immigration status.

The immediate block on these provisions prevents Idaho police from enforcing the new state crimes, ensuring that the status quo of federal authority over immigration remains in place throughout the duration of the lawsuit.

• 7 Shocking Things Jessica Capshaw Revealed About Growing Up With Steven Spielberg As Her Stepfather 892ho

The Legal Hammer: Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause

The core of the legal argument against HB 83—and the reason for its preliminary injunction—is the doctrine of federal preemption. This is a foundational principle of U.S. constitutional law, rooted in the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws and the U.S. Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford, appointed to the District of Idaho, found that the plaintiffs were highly likely to succeed in demonstrating that HB 83 is unconstitutional.

The judge's reasoning centered on several key points:

• The Surprise Vegas Wedding And Shared Grief 5 Shocking Details Of John Schneider And Dee Dee Sorvinos Whirlwind Romance Ohirf

• Exclusive Federal Field: The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the regulation of immigration is an area reserved for the federal government. States cannot create their own parallel immigration systems.
• Conflict with Federal Law: HB 83's new state crimes directly conflict with the comprehensive federal framework for immigration enforcement. Allowing states to create their own definitions of illegal entry would lead to a chaotic and inconsistent national policy.
• Precedent: The ruling echoes the legal fate of similar, more expansive state laws, such as Arizona's SB 1070. While the Supreme Court upheld certain aspects of SB 1070, it struck down the key provisions that attempted to create state-level crimes for unauthorized presence, reinforcing the federal government's exclusive authority.

The decision to grant a class-wide preliminary injunction means that the law is blocked for *all* potential defendants and plaintiffs across the entire state of Idaho, not just the specific individuals who filed the lawsuit.

The Key Players in IORC v. Labrador and the Path Forward

The ongoing litigation is a critical test case for state power versus federal authority in the realm of immigration. The legal teams and entities involved represent the deep divide over how immigration enforcement should be handled in border states and beyond.

The Plaintiffs: Community and Civil Rights Advocates

The lead plaintiff, the Idaho Organization of Resource Councils (IORC), is a grassroots organization representing farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Their involvement highlights the argument that the law would negatively impact agricultural workers and local economies.

They are joined by the ACLU of Idaho and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), who are leading the constitutional challenge based on federal preemption and the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations inherent in state-level enforcement.

The Defendant: Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has been a staunch defender of the law, arguing that states have a right to protect their borders and communities from the impacts of unauthorized immigration. Despite the initial setback of the preliminary injunction, the Attorney General’s office is expected to continue its vigorous defense of HB 83 through the appeal process, potentially taking the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Judge: U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford

Judge Amanda Brailsford, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Idaho, is the judicial officer who issued the critical injunction. Her written decision meticulously laid out the legal reasoning for why the state's attempt to legislate in the federal domain of immigration is likely unconstitutional. Her ruling is a powerful affirmation of the established constitutional framework that vests immigration authority solely with the federal government.

What Comes Next for Idaho's ICE Act?

The preliminary injunction is a temporary measure, but it is a strong indicator of the ultimate legal outcome. For the law to take effect, the State of Idaho would need to successfully appeal the injunction to a higher court, a process that could take years.

The current status is a legal holding pattern: HB 83 is blocked statewide, and its state-level entry and reentry crimes cannot be enforced. The litigation, *IORC v. Labrador*, will proceed through discovery and motions, with the potential for a final ruling or a settlement. This case is being closely watched by other states, like Texas and Arizona, that are also exploring or defending their own state-level immigration enforcement laws. The Idaho ruling reinforces the significant constitutional hurdles states face when they attempt to legislate in the exclusive federal field of immigration.

The ongoing legal battle underscores the complex constitutional relationship between state sovereignty and federal authority, particularly concerning issues of national security and border control. Until a final decision is reached, the "ICE Act" remains frozen, preventing local police from becoming de-facto federal immigration agents in the state of Idaho.