Federal Judge Blocks ICE Enforcement in Places of Worship, Upholding Longstanding Policy
On Monday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting enforcement actions in or near any place of worship associated with the lawsuit brought by Quakers, Baptists, and Sikhs. This ruling represents a major setback for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.
Background
The lawsuit, filed by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Sikh Temple Sacramento, challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy to rescind Obama-era guidelines that protected places of worship and other locations from ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement actions. The plaintiffs argued that the new policy, issued by acting DHS head Benjamie Huffman on January 20th, 2017, violated the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Obama-era guidelines, known as the "sensitive locations" policy, prohibited ICE and CBP from conducting enforcement actions in places of worship, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive locations, except in "exigent circumstances." The Trump administration’s decision to rescind these guidelines raised concerns among religious groups, who argued that it would discourage attendance at religious events and create a chilling effect on religious exercise.
Court Decision
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments, finding that the Trump administration’s policy was unconstitutional and violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of association and religious exercise. The judge noted that for decades, the government had recognized that everyone, regardless of their immigration status, should be able to attend houses of worship without fear of government raids.
Judge Chuang emphasized that the government’s policy was based solely on "common sense," rather than specific regulations or guidelines. He argued that this "common sense" approach was too vague and left enforcement officers with too much discretion, creating a risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Impact of the Ruling
The ruling is a significant victory for religious groups and advocates of immigrant rights. It upholds the longstanding policy of protecting places of worship from ICE enforcement and prevents the Trump administration from implementing its more aggressive immigration enforcement agenda in these sensitive locations.
The lawsuit is also a reminder that the courts play a crucial role in protecting individual rights and ensuring that government actions comply with the Constitution. The decision sends a clear message that the courts will not tolerate policies that discriminate against religious groups or violate the First Amendment.
The Trump administration has yet to respond to the ruling, but it is likely to appeal the decision or seek alternative ways to implement its immigration enforcement agenda. However, the decision is a major obstacle to the administration’s efforts to increase deportations and restrict immigration.
