Judge Allows ACLU of Idaho Challenge to HB 83 to Proceed January 23, 2026

SHARE

(IDAHO) — A federal judge’s January 23, 2026 ruling keeping most claims alive against Idaho’s HB 83 signals that state-created “illegal entry” crimes remain vulnerable to federal preemption and due process challenges, while a preliminary injunction continues to block enforcement on the ground.

U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford largely denied Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs led by the ACLU of Idaho to proceed on their core theories that HB 83 conflicts with federal immigration law and threatens constitutional protections.

The practical effect is immediate and concrete: Idaho law enforcement still may not enforce HB 83’s new “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry” state crimes while the injunction remains in place, even as federal immigration enforcement activity may continue independently.

Warning

A state injunction does not stop ICE or DHS operations. It only blocks Idaho’s enforcement of the challenged HB 83 criminal provisions.

1. Overview of HB 83 and the legal challenge

Idaho’s HB 83, titled the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act, creates state criminal offenses labeled “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry.” It attempts to make it a state crime for certain noncitizens to be present in Idaho after entering or reentering without federal authorization.

Who this HB 83 injunction and lawsuit may affect

• ✓
  Noncitizens living in or traveling through Idaho who could be questioned about lawful entry
• ✓
  Idaho residents and mixed-status families concerned about state-level arrest authority
• ✓
  Local law enforcement agencies evaluating whether they can use HB 83 criminal provisions
• ✓
  Employers, schools, and community organizations responding to enforcement concerns
• ✓
  Attorneys and advocates tracking preemption and due process challenges

The structure resembles other recent state immigration-enforcement efforts, including Texas’s SB 4, in that it seeks to add state penalties in an area historically regulated by federal law.

→ Note

Treat a motion-to-dismiss ruling as a “case continues” signal, not a final win or loss. The practical rule is: confirm whether an injunction is currently blocking enforcement before assuming state arrests or prosecutions can proceed.

Two legal theories sit at the center of the lawsuit.

Federal preemption (Supremacy Clause)

Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law can preempt state law when Congress has occupied the field, when state law conflicts with federal objectives, or when compliance with both systems is not possible.

Immigration is the recurring setting for this dispute because Congress created a comprehensive federal framework for admission, removal, and immigration-related offenses. Courts often ask whether a state law effectively creates a parallel immigration system, or interferes with federal priorities and discretion.

Due process concerns

→ Analyst Note

If you or a family member encounters law enforcement, write down the agency name, officer identifiers, location, and the stated reason for the stop as soon as it is safe. Save any paperwork or booking documents for a lawyer to review.

When states create immigration-adjacent crimes, due process questions often arise about notice, standards for enforcement, and the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty.

In practice, challengers commonly argue that a state statute may invite arrests based on uncertain immigration status, incomplete records, or assumptions that are difficult to test quickly in a criminal setting.

Although immigration proceedings are civil, immigration consequences often hinge on the existence of a valid “conviction.” The Board of Immigration Appeals has stressed that not every state disposition qualifies as a “conviction” for immigration purposes. See Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 2004) (examining when a state proceeding is sufficiently “criminal” for immigration consequences).

That background matters because state experiments like HB 83 are designed to generate criminal process and criminal records, which can reshape federal detention and removal decisions.

USCIS adjudicative holds policy referenced in community impact discussions

Policy memo:

PM-602-0194

Effective date:

January 1, 2026

Core change:

adjudicative holds may be placed on certain benefit applications tied to high-risk country nationals, pending additional review

→ PRACTICAL EFFECT

Longer adjudication timelines and potential additional evidence requests for affected applicants

→ Recommended Action

For any pending USCIS filing, keep a complete submission packet (forms, exhibits, translations, delivery proof) and a running timeline of notices received. If a hold or extra screening occurs, having an organized record helps respond quickly and accurately.

2. Judicial rulings and current posture

A motion to dismiss tests whether a complaint states legally viable claims, assuming the alleged facts are true. It is not a trial, and it does not resolve factual disputes.

When a court denies a motion to dismiss in major part, it typically means the plaintiffs have pleaded enough to move forward into discovery and merits briefing.

In the January 23, 2026 memorandum decision, Judge Brailsford largely rejected Idaho’s request to terminate the case early. The court allowed the principal challenges to continue.

• Supremacy Clause / preemption claims, focused on whether federal law preempts HB 83’s “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry” offenses
• Due process claims, focused on constitutional limits that apply when the state uses criminal law in a setting intertwined with immigration status

The court dismissed one narrower theory under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Practically, that dismissal narrows the set of arguments, but it does not end the lawsuit.

Critically, the ruling sits on top of an existing preliminary injunction issued in May 2025. A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo while litigation proceeds. Here, it means Idaho remains blocked from enforcing the challenged criminal provisions of HB 83.

Status

As of January 27, 2026, the May 2025 preliminary injunction remains in effect, so HB 83’s covered state crimes are not presently enforceable.

3. Key facts and policy details: the “independent crime” trigger

HB 83 does not attempt to authorize Idaho to run federal removal proceedings. Only the federal government can issue removal orders through the statutory system Congress created. See generally INA § 240; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.

Still, state criminal enforcement can change a person’s risk profile, custody status, and exposure to federal enforcement.

A central design feature is HB 83’s “independent crime” trigger. Under this approach, the state-level “illegal entry” or “illegal reentry” charge is intended to come into play only when a person is also suspected, detained, or investigated for some other state-law offense.

Supporters often present this as a public-safety measure rather than a generalized immigration stop authority. But the trigger does not eliminate the preemption problem.

Even when framed as secondary to another offense, a state law that creates its own “illegal entry/reentry” crimes can be seen as intruding into an area Congress addressed through federal criminal statutes and a comprehensive civil enforcement scheme.

The practical operation of the law—who gets arrested, what facts officers must decide, and how the state offense aligns with federal categories—often drives the constitutional analysis.

HB 83’s legislative statement of purpose, as described in the record, says it “fulfills Idaho’s commitment to support the Trump administration in the identification, detainment, and deportation of dangerous illegal aliens.” Legislative purpose can matter, especially when courts assess how a law will operate in practice.

Even so, courts typically focus on constitutional boundaries and functional effects, not labels.

4. Official statements and reactions

The ruling arrived amid heightened federal enforcement messaging. DHS public statements about targeted operations may change community behavior, risk perception, and reporting patterns, even when a state law is blocked.

On January 21, 2026, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin described “Operation Catch of the Day” as aimed at the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.”

Separately, Idaho Attorney General Labrador framed the litigation as a states’ rights question, saying Idaho should not be blocked from protecting citizens “within the framework of the Constitution.”

The ACLU of Idaho, through staff attorney Emily Croston, stated that enforcement of the law is “harmful and unconstitutional,” and emphasized that Idaho “has no place enforcing immigration law.”

These messages matter because people frequently conflate federal operations with state criminal authority. They are distinct. A federal enforcement surge does not validate a state criminal statute. A state statute, even if enforceable, does not create federal immigration status outcomes by itself.

Warning

Do not assume local police can demand immigration documents or “deport” someone. Removal is a federal process, typically through EOIR immigration courts.

5. Significance in the broader immigration enforcement context

Preemption fights recur because states face local political pressure tied to border and interior enforcement, while Congress has largely centralized immigration authority.

When states test the boundary, litigation often turns on whether a statute functions like a parallel immigration code.

Idaho’s HB 83 fits a familiar pattern seen in other states’ efforts, including Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma. While the specific statutory language varies, the recurring legal theme is the same: state criminalization of “illegal entry” behavior collides with a federal statutory scheme that already addresses admission, removability, and federal immigration crimes.

Operationally, enforcement also intersects with arrest and warrant questions. An Idaho decision, Ibarra v. Knight (Nov. 19, 2025), raised concerns about ICE reliance on administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants for entry into private residences.

Those issues are not identical to HB 83’s validity, but they can shape real-world enforcement tactics and community responses.

6. Impact on individuals and communities while the injunction remains in place

With the injunction intact, Idaho officers should not be making arrests solely under HB 83’s “illegal entry/reentry” provisions. That is a meaningful day-to-day protection for people who feared an additional state arrest pathway.

However, federal enforcement remains possible. DHS operations can affect attendance at work, school participation, medical visits, and willingness to report crime. Those disruptions can occur even when a state criminal statute is paused by court order.

The record also points to potential spillover into the benefits system. USCIS policy shifts can slow adjudications, expand vetting, or increase requests for evidence.

Here, the cited memorandum is USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, with an effective date of January 1, 2026, described as placing adjudicative holds for certain benefit filings involving “high-risk countries.” For applicants, that can mean longer timelines and greater documentation demands, even without any HB 83 enforcement.

Deadline note: If you have USCIS filings pending, plan for added processing time and keep address updates current with USCIS to avoid missed notices. See INA § 265; 8 C.F.R. § 265.1.

7. Official sources and where to read more

For readers tracking developments, focus on primary sources and procedural updates.

• USCIS policy memoranda page (best for verifying benefit-adjudication policy updates and effective dates): USCIS Policy Memoranda
• DHS newsroom (best for official federal enforcement announcements and clarifications)
• Idaho Attorney General newsroom (best for Idaho’s public litigation posture and state statements)
• Public court docket (best for orders, motions, and briefing schedules)

When reading the docket, prioritize orders (what the judge decided), then motions (what a party is asking the court to do), and then briefs (the arguments supporting or opposing those requests). Dates on orders control what is enforceable now.

Practical takeaways

1. HB 83 remains blocked for now. The May 2025 preliminary injunction continues to bar enforcement of the challenged state crimes.
2. The case is still alive on the main issues. The January 23, 2026 ruling kept preemption and due process claims in play, even after dismissing the Dormant Commerce Clause theory.
3. Federal enforcement is separate. ICE and DHS actions may continue regardless of HB 83’s status.
4. Benefits applicants should prepare for delays. USCIS adjudicative holds and increased vetting can affect timing and evidence needs.

Given the stakes—criminal exposure, detention risk, and immigration consequences—people affected by HB 83 or related enforcement activity should speak with qualified counsel. This is especially important for anyone with prior removals, pending asylum claims (INA § 208), prior criminal arrests, or pending USCIS filings.