Religious Leaders File Lawsuit Against Immigration Raids in Places of Worship
Vietnamese-Americans light candles at St. Helena, a Catholic church in Philadelphia. Source: Matt Rourke / AP
In the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump ran on the promise of increasing border security and executing a mass deportation of illegal immigrants. On January 20th, his first day back in office, the President rolled back policies that prevented immigration agencies from arresting immigrants in sensitive places such as schools, hospitals, and places of warship. This legislation is one of the President’s first steps toward his election promise and hard stance on immigration. The policy has created very mixed feedback, with supporters praising it as a necessary measure to enforce immigration laws, while critics argue it infringes on religious freedoms and civil rights.
Prior to this new policy, conducting stops, interrogations, and immigration arrests and raids without a warrant was allowed in places of worship only in extreme circumstances and with the approval of a high ranking authority. Now, however, the recession memo grants arrests to be made at any time and allows ICE officers to use “common sense” rather than needing to obtain permission from superiors. The vague language used in the memo gives I.C.E. officers more leeway to make arrests than they had prior to the new policy.
On February 11th, in response to President Trump’s efforts for stricter immigration laws, 27 Christian and Jewish groups filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement agencies. This suit came shortly after Pope Francis openly criticized Trump’s decision and his plans for mass deportation. The religious groups argue that the new policy has incited fear in the lives of immigrants, preventing them from attending religious ceremonies and events. They believe that the policy infringes on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Many immigrants say that they cannot feel or practice safely in a place they claim is supposed to provide sanctuary. The plaintiffs have used arguments directly from the Torah and Bible, saying every person is a child of God and is deserving of his love, regardless of one’s origin and therefore. Due to the guidance the groups have received from these books, they believe that “welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is thus a central precept of their faith practices.” In other words, they believe it is the God-given right of everyone to attend religious services without fearing deportation.
On Monday, February 25, a federal judge in Maryland, ruled that the Trump administration does not have the right to pursue immigration raids in Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist places of worship. Judge Theodore Chuang has allowed for a preliminary injunction, meaning the immigration raids in those places of worship must stop until the lawsuit is settled. This decision will temporarily prevent raids in roughly 1,700 places of worship across 35 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. While this decision is certain to appease those who filed the suit, the battle between this administration and religious groups is far from over.
In addition to disputes between the state and the church, the clash may extend to the relationship between local and federal municipalities. Sanctuary cities, such as Chicago, prohibit I.C.E. agents from entering Chicago Public Schools unless they show credentials, provide the reason they are entering, and have a warrant signed by a federal judge. Given the federal government’s new position, it would not be surprising to see sanctuary cities retaliate and increase the already high tensions over immigration and I.C.E practices. These cities can push back against the federal government by strengthening their local legislation to protect immigrants and taking legal action against the administration's acts which they deem unconstitutional.
The lawsuit raises important constitutional and ethical questions surrounding the balance between immigration enforcement and religious freedom. It also highlights the broader tension between the Trump administration's immigration agenda and religious groups that emphasize compassion and inclusivity toward immigrants. The administration has yet to respond to the lawsuit, and its outcome could have significant implications for both immigration policy, the intersection of faith and government regulation, and power balance between local and national government.