Comment: Preempted or Permitted? State Immigration Enforcement, Federal Preemption, and the Future of Immigration Policy by Aryn Kerr

Aryn Kerr is a 3L at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Her comment – Preempted or Permitted? State Immigration Enforcement, Federal Preemption, and the Future of Immigration Policy – has just been published. 78 Oklahoma Law Review 239 (2026).

Here is the introduction:

Tensions between the states and our federal government have existed since the founding of this nation. States expressed concern about the number of border crossings during Joe Biden’s presidency—approximately two million per year from 2021 to 2023.1 States argued the record levels of crossings indicated the administration’s abdication of its obligations to enforce federal immigration law and, therefore, left room for states to pass legislation that would enable them to enforce it instead.

Part II traces the history of states’ immigration legislation during the Biden era and compares laws passed in Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, and Florida. Part III considers the states’ arguments as to why their legislative efforts to regulate immigration at a state level should be upheld, as well as their opponents’ arguments for why these laws are preempted by federal immigration laws. Finally, Part IV examines the advantages and disadvantages of federal versus state immigration power to evaluate whether the states or the federal government should have authority over this issue.

Check out this very helpful table at page 248:

I love a good table. :)