A federal judge has issued an injunction against immigration enforcement operations in several houses of worship associated with Quaker and other religious groups. This decision, delivered by Judge Theodore Chang, comes amidst a suit challenging a Trump administration policy that potentially infringes on religious freedom. The preliminary injunction is effective specifically for the plaintiffs involved, including a network of Baptist churches in Georgia and a Sikh temple in California.
The legal battle arose following the Trump administration’s reversal of existing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that restricted the locations of migrant arrests in its bid to fulfill campaign promises aimed at large-scale deportations.
Under the new directive, field agents are authorized to carry out immigration enforcement in religious establishments without requiring a supervisor’s consent, employing their own “common sense” and “discretion.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys have pointed out a significant shift from a longstanding government policy deterring immigration enforcement activities in “protected areas” or “sensitive locations.”
In response, five Quaker congregations from Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia filed a lawsuit against DHS and its secretary, Kristi Noem, shortly after the new policy was introduced. Lawyers for these congregations assert that the new rule has fostered fear among immigrants, discouraging them from attending religious services.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Girard conveyed to the judge the nationwide fear spreading among immigrant communities, stating, “People are not showing up, and the plaintiffs are suffering as a result.” On the other front, government attorneys argue that the court is asked to intervene based on mere assumptions, noting a lack of evidence to suggest religious organizations have been specifically targeted.
In parallel, over two dozen Christian and Jewish groups have also pursued legal action in Washington, D.C., challenging the new enforcement policy. These plaintiffs are being represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, calling for an injunction to halt the DHS’s policy nationwide.
The foundation’s legal stance is that the policy change permits DHS to intervene in any house of worship, irrespective of its religious stance, a move they argue is unwarranted and overreaching.
Government lawyers maintain that immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, including houses of worship, has been part of standard practice for many years. They emphasize that the only alteration with the new directive is the elimination of the requirement for a supervisor’s approval.
This article has been amended to clarify that the additional lawsuit was filed in Washington, D.C., rather than in Washington state.
