A federal judge paused Oklahoma’s immigration law criminalizing undocumented presence, citing likely legal success in ACLU lawsuit.

Oklahoma's Immigration Law Halted Pending Review

Federal District Judge Bernard Jones has issued a two-week injunction blocking the enforcement of Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156, a state law that seeks to criminalize undocumented immigrants residing in the state. The order, handed down Tuesday, allows a legal challenge led by civil rights advocates to proceed.

The legislation, passed in 2024, creates the crime of “impermissible occupation” and authorizes state and local law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally. A first offense under the law is classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine. A second offense escalates to a felony with a maximum prison term of two years. Additionally, those convicted would be required to leave the state within 72 hours of conviction or release.

Although the law was signed in April 2024, it was initially stalled due to a constitutional challenge filed by the Biden administration. That lawsuit argued the law overstepped Oklahoma’s authority by infringing on federal immigration jurisdiction. However, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice chose to drop the case in March 2025, prompting a renewed legal effort from civil rights groups.

In the latest suit, two unnamed undocumented immigrants and a local advocacy organization—represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—brought the challenge forward. Judge Jones granted a temporary injunction, stating the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in court and scheduled a hearing for early June to consider a long-term block.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sharply criticized the ruling, calling it “outrageous” in a post on X. He argued the law is essential for curbing illegal marijuana cultivation, fentanyl trafficking, and other unlawful activities. Drummond also condemned the court for allowing anonymous plaintiffs, stating that withholding their identities protected “admitted lawbreakers.”

“In the name of federal law, the court is protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences,” Drummond said in a written statement. “This is perverse, contrary to the rule of law and we will be evaluating all options for challenging the ruling.”

Supporters of the injunction hailed the decision as a safeguard for civil rights. Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, described the outcome as a “victory for immigrants’ rights” and warned that the law had already fueled fear and discrimination in communities across the state.

“No matter what someone looks like, sounds like, or what their immigration status may be, they should feel safe in their own communities,” Cox-Touré said. “We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of immigrants and their families.”

The court is expected to revisit the matter in June, where a longer-term injunction may be considered as the broader legal battle continues to unfold.