A federal judge in Washington has ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing immigration agents to carry out enforcement operations at churches and other places of worship, for the time being. This decision comes despite a lawsuit from various religious organizations challenging the new approach.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a request from over two dozen Christian and Jewish groups who claimed that the policy violated their right to religious practice. The judge stated that these groups did not have the legal standing to challenge the policy, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that houses of worship are being targeted specifically by immigration enforcement.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Kelsi Corkran, expressed deep concern over the ruling, stating that their options are currently being evaluated. She underscored the importance of protecting rights safeguarded by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The plaintiffs argued that since President Trump took office, church attendance has notably fallen, citing significant decreases in some areas. However, Judge Friedrich found that the groups did not clearly connect their attendance declines to the enforcement policy. She noted that many congregants may be avoiding church to steer clear of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in their neighborhoods, rather than due to specific threats at their places of worship.
The judge’s decision indicates that simply reversing the policy regarding enforcement in religious sites may not necessarily lead to an increase in attendance, as she pointed out that the evidence does not show churches or synagogues being high-risk locations.
On his first day back in office, President Trump’s administration ended a prior Department of Homeland Security policy that limited where immigration arrests could occur. The new directive allows field agents to conduct operations at places of worship, using their discretion without needing supervision.
The plaintiffs provided a few examples of alleged enforcement actions at churches, including one incident in Georgia where an immigrant was arrested at a church. They also reported instances of surveillance at faith-based locations, such as ICE photographing people gathering for food.
This ruling follows a series of legal challenges surrounding the administration’s immigration policies. Recently, another judge allowed the administration to require those residing in the country illegally to register with the government. There have also been other lawsuits concerning immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, with mixed rulings across the country.
Despite this legal setback, the plaintiffs are still able to pursue their case moving forward.
