Federal Judge Bernard Jones has temporarily blocked Oklahoma’s strict new immigration law, dealing a setback to state officials seeking to crack down on illegal immigration while igniting debate over states’ roles in immigration enforcement.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156
- The law would have created the crime of “impermissible occupation” and allowed arrest of immigrants suspected of being in the U.S. illegally
- Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond strongly criticized the ruling, calling it “perverse” and “contrary to the rule of law”
- The temporary restraining order expires June 3, when the judge will consider a preliminary injunction
- The lawsuit was filed by two unnamed undocumented immigrants and the ACLU after a previous federal challenge was dropped
Judge Halts Oklahoma’s New Immigration Enforcement Law
A federal judge has blocked enforcement of Oklahoma’s recently enacted House Bill 4156, which would have created criminal penalties for illegal immigrants residing in the state. The law, signed in April 2024, established the crime of “impermissible occupation” for individuals in violation of federal immigration law and would have allowed law enforcement to arrest immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally. Under the legislation, first-time offenders faced misdemeanor charges with up to one year in jail and a $500 fine, while second offenses would be treated as felonies with up to two years imprisonment.
“In the name of federal law, the court is protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences. This is perverse, contrary to the rule of law, and we will be evaluating all options for challenging the ruling.”, said Drummond.
The law contained a provision requiring convicted individuals to leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of conviction or release. Judge Jones’ temporary restraining order allows the plaintiffs to challenge the measure legally while some remain anonymous to avoid exposure to federal authorities. The order is set to expire on June 3, when the court will consider arguments for a preliminary injunction that could block the law for a longer period.
Federal judge grants preliminary injunction halting controversial Oklahoma immigration lawhttps://t.co/cfU13GQlwn#immigration
— ILW.COM (@ilwcom) July 1, 2024
State Officials Express Frustration
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond voiced strong opposition to the court’s decision, arguing that it undermines efforts to combat illegal activities in the state. Drummond highlighted that the law was needed to address serious problems related to illegal immigration, including unauthorized marijuana cultivation operations and fentanyl distribution. His comments reflect broader frustration among state officials who believe federal authorities have failed to adequately address border security concerns.
The Attorney General also criticized the Biden-Harris Administration for its handling of border security while praising the Trump Administration for withdrawing previous objections to the law. Drummond took particular issue with the anonymity granted to plaintiffs in the case, arguing that the court was effectively protecting lawbreakers from facing consequences for their actions. The state had previously faced a similar challenge when the Biden administration sued to block the law, but that case was dismissed after the Department of Justice withdrew its objections.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas – 268 F. Supp. 2d 679 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
June 25, 2003Mohammad Rankouhi MOMENNIA, Petitioner,
v.
Anne ESTRADA, District Director, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Respondents.
No. 3-03-CV-0525-BD.
U.S.…— Robert D in Tulsa – #FindYourPeace (@RobertDinTulsa) May 6, 2025
Legal Challenges and Constitutional Questions
Judge Jones’ decision to issue the temporary restraining order suggests he believes the plaintiffs’ case has merit and could succeed in court. The challenge raises important constitutional questions about state authority in immigration matters, an area traditionally reserved for federal jurisdiction. The current lawsuit was filed by two unnamed undocumented immigrants alongside the American Civil Liberties Union after the previous federal case was dropped. The ACLU of Oklahoma characterized the judge’s decision as a victory for immigrants’ rights.
“But the damage of HB 4156 and the national rhetoric repeated by local politicians has already created an environment of fear in our state. No matter what someone looks like, sounds like, or what their immigration status may be, they should feel safe in their own communities. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of immigrants and their families.”, said Tamya Cox-Touré.
The Oklahoma case represents part of a broader national debate over the role of states in immigration enforcement. Several states have enacted similar laws in recent years, testing the boundaries between state and federal authority. Legal experts note that these cases often hinge on questions of federal preemption and whether state laws interfere with the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to establish uniform immigration policy. The upcoming June hearing will provide further clarity on whether Oklahoma’s law will remain blocked.
