GREENBELT, Md. – A federal judge has ruled that immigration agents cannot carry out arrests in specific houses of worship, including Quaker meeting houses and a few other religious groups’ places of worship.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chang issued a preliminary ruling blocking this practice, stating that the policy could violate religious freedom. This decision comes as a lawsuit against the policy continues in court.
Who Is Affected by the Ruling?
The ruling applies only to the groups involved in the lawsuit. This includes a network of Baptist churches in Georgia and a Sikh temple in California. These groups took legal action after the Trump administration removed previous Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that restricted where immigration enforcement could take place.
The previous rule, in place for over 30 years, classified houses of worship and other locations as “sensitive areas” where immigration arrests were not allowed. However, under the new policy, field agents can conduct arrests at places of worship without needing approval from a supervisor.
Why Are Religious Groups Suing?
The religious groups argue that the new policy makes immigrants afraid to attend religious services. Lawyers representing them say their congregations are seeing fewer people come to worship due to fear of immigration enforcement.
“It’s a fear that people are experiencing across the country,” said Bradley Girard, an attorney for the plaintiffs. He explained that many people are avoiding religious gatherings, which harms these communities.
A coalition of Quaker meetings from Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia joined the lawsuit against DHS and its secretary, Kristi Noem. They filed their case on January 27, just days after the new policy was announced.
What Is the Government’s Response?
The U.S. government argues that the lawsuit is based on speculation, claiming there is no proof that any of the religious organizations involved have been specifically targeted.
Justice Department attorney Kristina Wolfe stated, “Plaintiffs have provided no evidence indicating that any of their religious organizations have been targeted.” She also pointed out that immigration enforcement in sensitive places, including houses of worship, has been allowed for decades. The main change in the policy is that agents no longer need a supervisor’s approval before making an arrest.
Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit against the policy has been filed in Washington, D.C., by more than two dozen Christian and Jewish organizations.
Attorneys from the Democracy Forward Foundation, who represent the Maryland plaintiffs, have asked the judge to block this policy nationwide. They argue that allowing immigration arrests in any house of worship, regardless of religious beliefs, is a violation of religious rights.
