releases: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-cruz-grassley-file-amicus-brief-defending-states-right-to-counter-mass-illegal-immigration
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-cruz-grassley-file-amicus-brief-defending-states-right-to-counter-mass-illegal-immigration | Sens. Cruz, Grassley File Amicus Brief Defending States’ Right to Counter Mass Illegal Immigration | 2026-08-14 | 2026 | 2026-08 | Republican | Senate | TX | Ted Cruz | C001098 | www.cruz.senate.gov | cruz | https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases | scraper | WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed an amicus brief supporting Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird’s defense of the state’s illegal reentry law. The brief urges the Court to take up the case and protect states’ ability to help enforce federal immigration laws. Texas is on the front lines of this battle and has established state penalties for illegal entry and presence through S.B. 4. Excerpts from the amicus brief are below, and the full text of the brief can be viewed here. “The flood of mass illegal immigration into our country created a national emergency and states like Iowa bore the brunt of the problems. Iowa tried to protect its residents and help the federal government enforce our immigration laws by enacting a complementary statute. This response is not only lawful but also commendable. “Courts across the country have been continuing Arizona’s mistakes, leading to a one-way ratchet of absurd results. State laws that complement and advance federal law are routinely preempted. In these cases, courts seem to adopt such an expansive definition of “conflict” that it even envelopes its own antonym. But when states pass laws that are intended to, and do in fact, obstruct federal enforcement, courts have changed their tune. “The narrower point is that overlap is not itself conflict, and the possibility of conflict in some applications does not establish that every application of every provision is an obstacle. “The decision below is wrong, not just for case-specific errors, but for a categorically incorrect legal understanding of facial challenges and conflict preemption—both inherited from Arizona. The question is recurring, outcome-determinative, and presently disables a state enactment addressing an important issue. This Court should grant certiorari and revisit Arizona.” | 1 | 2026-08-25T05:31:37Z | 2026-08-25T05:33:09Z |