A federal judge has delivered a stunning blow to Idaho’s controversial House Bill 83, halting its enforcement and intensifying the legal war between state immigration laws and federal authority.
At a Glance
- Federal judge issues injunction blocking Idaho’s House Bill 83
- ACLU of Idaho sues, claiming unconstitutional overreach
- State officials vow to defend the law in court
- Law modeled after controversial Texas legislation targeting immigrants
Federal Judge Freezes Idaho Crackdown
U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of Idaho’s House Bill 83, a law that empowered local police to arrest individuals suspected of immigration violations. The legislation, passed by state lawmakers in early 2025, mimics a Texas statute that also faces intense legal scrutiny.
According to reporting from Fox News, the law would have allowed police to arrest individuals for “illegal entry” or “reentry” when linked to other alleged crimes. However, the court found that such measures may violate federal authority and due process protections.
The ruling followed a lawsuit from the ACLU of Idaho, which argued the bill would turn local officers into federal immigration agents. In a statement to Boise State Public Radio, ACLU attorney Emily Croston said, “We are pleased the court recognized that enforcement of this law is harmful and unconstitutional.”
Watch coverage of the legal battle in the report Federal Judge Blocks Idaho’s Immigration Law on YouTube.
State Reacts to Court Rebuke
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office signaled its intent to fight back. In comments published by the Latin Times, spokesperson Damon Sidur said, “The Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the decision to determine next steps. We will continue to defend House Bill 83 in full.”
The legislation had sparked intense controversy from the outset. Critics warned it would enable racial profiling and increase the risk of civil rights abuses, while supporters claimed it was necessary to enforce immigration laws locally amid what they call a federal failure to secure the southern border.
One of the most contentious features of House Bill 83 is its immunity clause, which shields officers from liability when enforcing immigration-related arrests. Civil rights groups called this a legal blank check for abuse.
Broader Legal Clash Escalates
Idaho’s legal setback is part of a larger national clash over immigration enforcement. A similar case is unfolding in Florida, where Judge Kathleen Williams scolded the state attorney general for ignoring her ruling against restrictive immigration laws. “What I am offended by is someone suggesting you don’t have to follow my order,” she said, as reported by the Latin Times.
Williams is also expected to issue a preliminary injunction against Florida’s statutes, echoing the concerns now raised in Idaho—that state immigration laws risk overstepping federal jurisdiction.
As Idaho prepares its legal appeal, the outcome could carry major implications for other Republican-led states pursuing similar legislation. The courts now find themselves at the center of a growing national confrontation over immigration law, states’ rights, and the limits of federalism.
