More churches are suing ICE over arrests in places of worship: 'Congregations have gone underground'

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Independent

Tuesday 29 July 2025 23:20 BST


Another group of Christian denominations is suing Donald Trump’s administration to stop immigration enforcement arrests in their churches.

A lawsuit from Baptist, Lutheran and Quaker groups accuses Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of chilling First Amendment protections and infringing on religious freedoms. The groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the policy on Tuesday.

After Trump entered office, the administration rescinded previous Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy that prohibited enforcement actions in sensitive locations such as places of worship, as well as schools and hospitals.

Within the last month, federal agents seized a man in front of a church, brandished a rifle at a pastor and detained a grandfather dropping off his granddaughter at a church school in Los Angeles, according to the lawsuit. Federal officers have also recently chased several men into a church parking lot and arrested a parishioner at churches across southern California, according to church leaders.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ice-church-raids-arrests-lawsuit-b2798388.html

---

Link to SUIT (PDF) - https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1-Complaint.pdf

[Skittles]

1. yeah we will see what RELIGIOUS FREEDOM actually means to repukes

hint: IT'S NOTHING GOOD

[OldBaldy1701E]

2. Aww, that's simple.

"I have the freedom to push my religion on you and everyone else."

"You don't have freedom to do shit."

Simple.

[Skittles]

26. here's the thing though

they prove EVERY DAY their "faith" is UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT

[OldBaldy1701E]

30. Yep.

You know the old adage. "If the product sucks, double down!"

[FBaggins]

3. Doesn't seem like that will get anywhere

None of the stories appear to represent raids into religious services (which might possibly offend even this court).

But I can’t see the currently-constituted courts blocking an arrest in a school parking lot just because the school is owned by a church. Nor one that wants to effectively codify “I made it on to holy ground so I have sanctuary!”

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Exactly

Going into a church and dragging people out during services is quite different than grabbing them in a parking lot.

[tavernier]

5. You make it sound as if

grabbing people out of ANY parking lot is ok. So I guess I should start adding USSR to my return mail labels.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. I didn't say that at all nor did I imply it

But people ARE being grabbed from parking lots, church or otherwise. A lawsuit saying "you can't take them from a church parking lot" most likely isn't going to go anywhere because again, it's a parking lot.

A lawsuit saying "they're invading our churches during services and taking people away" is very different, and more likely to be a legal problem under the First Amendment.

[FBaggins]

7. The Obama/Biden administration's ICE deported over three million people

You think none of them were arrested on the street or in a parking lot?

It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth... but it is still dramatically different than raiding a church during services.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. NONE of them were taken from CHURCH "property" under Biden or Obama

The "property" is not just the building but it is whatever is listed in the municipality's real estate records as BELONGING TO that church or school or whatever. THAT is what this policy change is about.

You know what "property" means, right?

[FBaggins]

11. There's no reason to believe that's true

You're misunderstanding the Obama administration policy (https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ero-outreach/pdf/10029.2-policy.pdf)

Someone who is chased onto church property could still have been arrested under the "sensitive locations" policy.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. And you misunderstand what the NEW policy is

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse

Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole

Release Date: January 21, 2025

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued two directives essential to ending the invasion of the US southern border and empower law enforcement to protect Americans.

The first directive rescinds the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement actions that thwart law enforcement in or near so-called “sensitive” areas. The second directive ends the broad abuse of humanitarian parole and returns the program to a case-by-case basis. ICE and CBP will phase out any parole programs that are not in accordance with the law. The following statement is attributable to a DHS Spokesperson:

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.

“The Biden-Harris Administration abused the humanitarian parole program to indiscriminately allow 1.5 million migrants to enter our country. This was all stopped on day one of the Trump Administration. This action will return the humanitarian parole program to its original purpose of looking at migrants on a case-by-case basis.”

There is a fucking difference between "using care" and getting PRIOR APPROVAL versus going hog wild because "illegal aliens", and "warrant not needed because we 'suspect'" and have a 3000 per day quota to meet (which is WHY immigration organizations have given many of these schools and churches "handbooks" on their rights and what is required BY LAW.

[FBaggins]

16. "Prior approval" wasn't required for hot pursuit scenarios

I don’t see any reason why you’re accepting the current administration’s spin on an Obama/Biden policy… but it doesn’t really matter because a lawsuit has to be over things that actually occur. The churches have to find actual occurrences that would have been disallowed under the prior policy before they’re likely to have the courts do much for them

[BumRushDaShow]

19. You are still trying to conflate policies to indicate "Democrats" are the same as "Republicans"

and they are NOT.

The GOP's ICE doesn't give a shit whether it is "hot pursuit" or someone dropping a child off at daycare.

This guy was apparently racially profiled, pulled over near the school that hosted the daycare, was permitted to go onto the facility property to drop the child off, and then the altercation happened on the school property.

That's not a fucking "hot pursuit". And this just happened 2 weeks ago.

‘Daddy, police!’: New video shows masked ICE agents arrest father outside child’s school in Beaverton

[BumRushDaShow]

8. "Nor one that wants to effectively codify "I made it on to holy ground so I have sanctuary!""

Many Christian churches DO hold services OUTSIDE of the actual building - particularly during certain religious days such as St. Francis of Assisi' feast day, where parishioners (and often children) bring their pets to be honored and blessed.







Some of the bigger parishes will actually include sheep and goats and ox and all manner of domesticated animals.

And during the Holy Saturday evening service and Easter Sunday Sunrise Service, many parishes will actually have members PROCESS from the grounds outside the church building, and march INTO the church.

But you knew that, right?

This is why there is concern.

[FBaggins]

10. I did indeed know that and have attended such services

And those churches will have a much easier case to make if ICE raids such a service.

But nothing like that has been reported or alleged.

They can be concerned... and I'd bet the current administration likes the idea that they'll be concerned... but any judge trying to make an order like that would get pretty quickly overturned.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. "But nothing like that has been reported or alleged. "

So you have scoured the entire internet and perused EVERY local news source in every municipality, county, and state across the U.S. and proudly proclaim that since you "didn't 'see it', 'it didn't happen'"? Got it.

Why do you think there are ongoing lawsuits right now and more and more are being filed as "class action"?

[FBaggins]

17. You are familiar with how lawsuits work, right?

I don’t need to comb through “the entire internet” and proclaim that something isn’t happening.

The people who are suing to stop it have to find examples where it IS occurring. When the reported cases all fall short of that what else can we assume?

[BumRushDaShow]

18. But that is what you have done. Do you even know what related suits have been filed against 45's administration?

It has to be well over 300. Some of the cases related to religious institutions and schools is shown here - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

Executive Action: Immigration enforcement against places of worship and schools (Policy Memo)

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Md.)

Case No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC Complaint (Jan. 27, 2025)
Amended Complaint (Feb. 5, 2025) 2025-01-27 Overview: A coalition of Quaker congregations sued the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), challenging a new policy allowing immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like places of worship. The coalition argues the policy violates constitutional rights and federal laws, and has asked the court to stop its implementation. The court partially granted their request by blocking any enforcement of the policy in or near any place of worship owned or used by the plaintiff organizations without a warrant, however DHS has appealed this order to the Fourth Circuit.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.”
The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Update 1: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, the court granted in part a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the DHS 2025 directive in or near any place of worship owned or used by the plaintiff organizations without an administrative or judicial warrant; and instead requiring adherence to the 2021 guidelines. The court also issued a Memorandum Opinion, which explained its reasons for not issuing a nationwide injunction based on the particulars of the Plaintiffs' organizations and their affidavits.
Update 3: On Apr. 17, DHS and Noem filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and supporting memorandum, which request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claims specifically.
Update 4: On Apr. 24, DHS and Noem appealed the Feb. 24 preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 5: On May 1, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2025-05-01

Mennonite Church USA et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al (D.D.C.)

Case No. 1:25-cv-00403 Complaint 2025-02-11 Overview: Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), challenging a new policy allowing immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like places of worship. The organizations argue that the new policy violates the Constitution and federal laws, and have asked the court to block DHS from enforcing the new policy without a warrant or severe circumstances. The court denied these organizations’ request to block the enforcement of the new policy, a decision which has since been appealed by the organizations.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious denominations and associations sued for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DHS from effectuating the directive. The complaint asserts that DHS’s authorization of immigration enforcement action at plaintiffs’ places of worship in the absence of exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. In addition, the complaint alleges that DHS’s manner of recission of the “sensitive locations policy” violates legal constraints on agency action.

Update 1: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from carrying out immigration enforcement activities at their places of worship absent exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant.
Update 2: On Mar. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the plaintiffs lack standing, do not sufficiently claim irreparable injury, and that there is not a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion.They also claim that the Government has a compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of immigration laws.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants’ motion in opposition.
Update 4: On Apr. 11, Judge Friedrich denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating in the accompanying memorandum opinion that the Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of standing.
Update 5: On May 30, Plaintiffs appealed Judge Friedrich’s order denying their preliminary injunction motion to the D.C. Circuit. 2025-05-30

Denver Public Schools v. Noem (D. Colo)

Case No. 1:25-cv-00474 Complaint 2025-02-12 Overview: Denver Public Schools challenged the Trump Administration’s new policy, issued via the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), which allows immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like schools. The schools argue that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy change and violated disclosure requirements under federal law. The schools have asked the court to temporarily stop enforcement of the policy while the lawsuit is in progress.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
Denver Public Schools filed a suit challenging the recission of the policy, alleging that DHS implemented this major policy change through internal memoranda that have never been publicly released, with the shift announced only through a press release. According to the complaint, the new policy allegedly replaces three decades of formal protections with vague guidance that agents should use "common sense" in deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations. The Plaintiff argues that this reversal of a decades-old policy constitutes final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that DHS failed to meet the basic requirements for changing established policy — including the need to provide reasoned explanation for the change, consider reliance interests, and examine alternatives. The Plaintiff further alleges that DHS’s failure to publish the policy memoranda violates FOIA disclosure requirements. The suit asks the court to enjoin and vacate the new policy and require the 2025 policy to be made public.

Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Mar. 7, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds of a claimed “arbitrary, capricious” conduct, constituting a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting enjoinment and the vacating of the DHS policy.
Update 4: On Apr. 29, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Plaintiffs lack standing, and they failed to state a claim. 2025-04-29

New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.)

Case No. 4:25-cv-40102 Complaint 2025-07-28 [Coming soon - On July 28, a coalition of religious organizations filed a complaint challenging the administration’s rescission of prior enforcement guidelines that restricted immigration enforcement near protected areas, such as places of worship. The change in policy, which reverses two decades of guidance, allows the administration to conduct enforcement at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, shelters, food banks, hospitals, and churches. The plaintiffs allege the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.] 2025-07-28

The above were the "earlier" cases.

AP has a case tracker here too - https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/

The "immigration" ones are listed here (and it is missing at least one from the "Just Security" tracker) - https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/#immigration

This is why you have immigration groups providing "guidance" to these institutions. E.g., Factsheet: Trump’s Rescission of Protected Areas Policies Undermines Safety for All

One of the "protected areas" outside of churches and schools, includes "playgrounds". So this type of thing is being monitored as well.

[FBaggins]

20. I'm well aware of the existing cases... I don't think you've read them

I haven’t seen a single case where they’ve pointed to an actual arrest during a church service - or even one that would violate their earlier executive policy. The grandparent at a school drop off comes the closest.

All of them seek to enjoin it from happening based on a the stated change in policy… none have alleged that it has actuallly occured (and, to be fair, the administration says that it has not)

[BumRushDaShow]

21. "I haven't seen a single case where they've pointed to an actual arrest during a church service"

You have now added "special criteria" that would somehow require "a church service" to be going on while ignoring "private property" and the 4th Amendment. But that is not unexpected.

If someone "not in 'hot pursuit'" shows up on private property without a warrant or refuses to show one when asked, then you have this problem -

Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

There are states with "stand your ground" laws with people who could haul off and shoot that "intruder" if no warrant is presented.

You have an administration that has pretty much declared EVERY immigrant as "suspect" (whether documented, a citizen of an undocumented immigrant, an immigrant undergoing the process of residency and/or citizenship, or undocumented) and "criminally liable".

And you continue to concede as examples are pointed out. That drop-off story was just from a quick scan of the news. The incident I linked to most likely has not had a suit filed for it yet. And to file suit, you either need $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ or some pro bono lawyers and/or organizations to do that for you, and when you are dealing with certain, often poor immigrant communities, they are SOL if they don't have access to the resources.

[tavernier]

12. Church or no church, as long as it is private property,

the owner should be notified if anyone is grabbed, snatched, taken, etc. If a person is sitting on my front doorstep I am the only one with the authority to tell him to leave, or authority to ask the police to order him to leave. He could be my friend or a robber, but it’s still my private property.
I don’t understand why ICE can infringe on this. I thought republicans were the party of STAY OFF MY LAWN OR I’LL SHOOT YOU.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. That was ironically one of Scalia's pet peeves - notably "private property rights" and the 4th Amendment

E.g., United States v. Jones

[tavernier]

27. I bet both he and RBG are are in the heavenly bar right now

expressing their opinions!!!

[twodogsbarking]

22. I am living in a world that I don't understand, but I am weird.

[Evolve Dammit]

23. Free speech and freedom of religion also under attack. Antithesis to our origins as a free republic after escaping it.

[tinymontgomery]

24. "Attendance and donations have plummeted, "

Seems like they're starting to worry about the donations coming in and supporting the church. I have to wonder who they pushed people to vote for, because we know many churches worked around the law or just out right ignored it. And now they have been given permission to tell them who to vote for from the pulpit legally.

[MasonDreams]

25. I am increasingly becoming chronically angry.

I feel the guilt, shame, chronic stress. The USA government is, by action and non- action, helping so many other countries' "governments" comit horrific crimes against their people.
We need to be good neighbors and honor asylum seekers. Our "homeland" is much less "secure" if we help the governments people are running from, continue their bad behavior.

[FakeNoose]

28. honestly, I believe this stuff is happening only when the state is already "RED"

I find it hard to believe that it's happening in BLUE or even PURPLE states.

Of course churches should all be banding to protect their congregants from the over-stepping of ICE. Why can't churches get protection from their own local police forces? If the local police won't act when called in, I don't think the individual churches have the resources to oppose the ICE raids. As far as I know it hasn't happened in Pennsylvania.

[Norrrm]

29. 'Congregations have gone underground'

Sounds like the early church in the first centuries AD, fearful of the administration.