Federal judge denies request to block ICE operations at houses of worship

Apr 11

Listen

Lauren Keenan Anchor/Reporter

By Lauren Keenan (Anchor/Reporter), Zachary Hill (Video Editor)

A federal judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration, declining to block immigration enforcement at houses of worship. Twenty-seven Jewish and Christian faith groups sought to stop ICE operations after DHS ended its “sensitive locations” policy in January.
While the organizations argued that enforcement harms religious practice and violates First Amendment rights, Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled the groups failed to show a credible threat.
In a related case, a Maryland judge granted limited protections to some Quaker groups but did not extend them broadly.

Full Story

Twenty-seven religious organizations rooted in Jewish and Christian traditions, representing millions of Americans, sought injunctive relief to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations at their places of worship. The request followed the Department of Homeland Security’s January decision to rescind its “sensitive locations” policy.

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News™

That policy had previously blocked immigration enforcement actions at locations such as churches, mosques, synagogues and schools. Its removal now permits federal immigration officers to conduct enforcement at those sites.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Impact on ministry and congregation attendance

The organizations stated that “welcoming and serving the stranger, or immigrant, is… a central precept of their faith practices.” Many provide “social service ministries—including food and clothing pantries, language classes, legal assistance, and job training services—to all persons without regard to [their] documentation or legal status.”

They argued that ICE surveillance and enforcement is “devastating to their religious practice,” claiming it “shatters the consecrated space of sanctuary.” They also reported a significant decline in attendance and rising security-related costs.

First Amendment claims rejected

In addition to practical concerns, the groups claimed that federal actions “near their places of worship burden members’ freedom of religious exercise and right to expressive association” under the First Amendment.

However, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled against the groups in a filing on Friday, April 11.

“At least at this juncture and on this record, the plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing of a ‘credible threat’ of enforcement,” Friedrich wrote. “Nor does the present record show that places of worship are being singled out as special targets.”

Legal response and partial injunction elsewhere

Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer representing the religious groups, issued a statement following the ruling:

“We are currently reviewing the decision and are assessing our options. We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

In a related case, a federal judge in Maryland ruled in favor of mostly Quaker organizations, temporarily blocking ICE raids at their places of worship. However, the judge declined to expand the injunction to cover all religious institutions nationwide.

Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Deportation, First Amendment, Immigration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Religion, Religious entities

A FEDERAL IMMIGRATION JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND DECLINES TO BLOCK FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS AT HOUSES OF WORSHIP.

27 GROUPS ROOTED IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN FAITHS AND REPRESENTING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, ASKED FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO STOP ANY KIND OF ICE ENFORCEMENT AT THEIR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS – AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RESCINDED ITS “SENSITIVE LOCATIONS” POLICY IN JANUARY. THE MOVE ALLOWS FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICERS TO CARRY OUT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AT PLACES OF WORSHIP AND SCHOOLS.

THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS SAY “WELCOMING AND SERVING THE STRANGER, OR IMMIGRANT, IS. . . A CENTRAL PRECEPT OF THEIR FAITH PRACTICES.” THEY OFFER “SOCIAL SERVICE MINISTRIES—INCLUDING FOOD AND CLOTHING PANTRIES, LANGUAGE CLASSES, LEGAL ASSISTANCE, AND JOB TRAINING SERVICES—TO ALL PERSONS “WITHOUT REGARD TO [THEIR] DOCUMENTATION OR LEGAL STATUS.”

THEY ARGUED THAT ICE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND SURVEILLANCE ARE “DEVASTATING TO THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE,” AND “SHATTER THE CONSECRATED SPACE OF SANCTUARY.” THEY SAY THEY’VE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDING THEIR SERVICES AND THEY’VE HAD TO INCREASE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECURITY.

THEY ALSO ARGUED FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ACTIONS “NEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP BURDEN MEMBERS’ FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE AND RIGHT TO EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION” UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DABNEY FRIEDRICH IN WASHINGTON, APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING HIS FIRST TERM, RULED AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

“AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE AND ON THIS RECORD, THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MADE THE REQUISITE SHOWING OF A ‘CREDIBLE THREAT’ OF ENFORCEMENT. NOR DOES THE PRESENT RECORD SHOW THAT PLACES OF WORSHIP ARE BEING SINGLED OUT AS SPECIAL TARGETS,” FRIEDRICH WROTE.

KELSI CORKRAN, A LAWYER REPRESENTING THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS RELEASED A STATEMENT SAYING:

“WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE DECISION AND ARE ASSESSING OUR OPTIONS. WE REMAIN GRAVELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THIS POLICY AND ARE COMMITTED TO PROTECTING FOUNDATIONAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.”

A MARYLAND FEDERAL JUDGE SIDED WITH A GROUP OF MOSTLY QUAKER ORGANIZATIONS FROM ALLOWING ICE RAIDS IN THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP BUT REFUSED TO EXPAND THE INJUNCTION TO ALL RELIGIOUS LOCATIONS.