I.C.E. in the House of God: Immigration Enforcement in Religious Spaces Chills Americans’ First Amendment Rights

by Collin Derrig, Citations Editor, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

Author’s Note

This blog was originally written in April 2025. Since then, immigration enforcement by the Trump Administration has grown more expansive and aggressive. The military and federal law enforcement have been sent into major American cities to increase immigration enforcement in these places as part of a declared crackdown on crime.¹ Fear that enforcement activities in sensitive locations would increase because of the new policy discussed in this blog have come true.² The presence of ICE and its partners in some communities have caused religious leaders to develop policies for dealing with federal agents or, in the extreme, to ask their congregants to avoid services.³ There is real fear in America’s immigrant and foreign-born communities that they may be harassed or detained, regardless of their legal or citizenship status. The courts have been the only avenue of relief that many people can turn to. However, ongoing litigation against enforcement in churches and other sensitive locations may be less effective than immigrants and their allies hoped for after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Casa, Inc. (2025), which disavowed the ability of federal district courts to employ universal injunctions as a form of relief in most cases.⁴ Considering these developments, foreign nationals and citizens alike must be ever aware of the potential intrusion of federal agents into their sanctums and that even federal courts may be unable to provide necessary relief. Lawsuits continue to be filed against the Trump Administration’s decision to rescind protections for churches and other sensitive locations.⁵ Whether or not this policy is here to stay remains to be seen.

Executive Blog Chair’s Note

As the author’s note explains, this blog post was originally written in April 2025. Although it was drafted over a year ago, we have chosen to publish it in July 2026 because its analysis remains valuable for readers seeking to understand the ongoing developments in immigration law and policy.

Rather than reflecting issues that arose suddenly, this post provides important context and illustrates how these legal and policy conflicts developed and intensified over time. We hope that publishing it now will help readers better understand the broader trajectory of the current debates.

I. Introduction

Like many Americans, over eleven million undocumented immigrants living within our borders associate with friends, family, and community in religious settings.⁶ For the past thirty years, United States immigration policy has significantly restricted immigration enforcement in houses of worship and other “sensitive areas.”⁷ This policy reflects the integral nature of free religious expression in the United States, as enshrined in the First Amendment.⁸However, on January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded these restrictions.⁹ Just one week later, Quaker groups filed a lawsuit (“Quaker Lawsuit”) in the District Court of Maryland seeking to prevent the rescission from going into effect.¹⁰ Several weeks later, a coalition of Christian and Jewish groups filed a similar suit (“D.C. Lawsuit”) in the District Court for the District of Columbia.¹¹ In addition to statutory claims, both lawsuits alleged that the Trump Administration’s actions violated the plaintiffs’, and the respective members of their religion, First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association.¹² Despite the two lawsuits being based on similar claims, the District Court of Maryland granted a preliminary injunction, while the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion for preliminary injunction based on lack of standing.¹³

This blog will focus on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of expressive association claim and will analyze the decisions of the Maryland and D.C. District Courts. Part II will open by explaining the First Amendment right of freedom of expressive association asserted in both lawsuits. Then, it will introduce the immigration enforcement structure, past policy regarding immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, and the Trump Administration’s policy. Part II will close by detailing the two lawsuits filed by religious groups, and Part III will examine whether the Trump Administration’s policy violates the freedom of expressive association. Lastly, Part IV will consider the potential long-term implications of the Trump Administration’s policy and the potential future of the lawsuits in the federal courts.

II. Background

This section will introduce the relevant information needed to assess and consider the constitutionality of the administration’s policy. First, it will review the basic contours of the right at issue: the freedom of expressive association. Second, it will briefly introduce the basic structure of the current immigration enforcement structure of the United States. Third, it will discuss the Trump Administration’s policy and how it differs from past immigration policies, specifically surrounding enforcement in sensitive locations. Finally, it will briefly introduce general responses to the policy and discuss the results of the two lawsuits that have challenged the policy on religious grounds.

A. First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expressive Association

The First Amendment does not explicitly include the right to freedom of expressive association.¹⁴ However, in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, the Supreme Court recognized the existence of an implied right of association inherently connected to the protection of free speech.¹⁵ Nearly twenty-five years later, in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, the Court recognized the freedom of expressive association as a right implicit in the right to speech, assembly, petition, and free exercise, as all of these rights in some way hinge on a person’s right to associate with whomever they wish.¹⁶

In Roberts, the United States Supreme Court held that a Minnesota statute requiring public organizations to accept women as members did not violate the First Amendment’s implied right to expressive association.¹⁷ Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan stated there is a recognized right to associate for the purpose of engaging in “speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances and the exercise of religion.”¹⁸ He further stated that “freedom of speech, worship, petition, and assembly could not be vigorously protected from state interference unless the First Amendment also guaranteed the freedom of expressive association.”¹⁹ However, Roberts held that this right was not unlimited, and government action is constitutional if it serves “compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”²⁰ The Roberts court ultimately concluded that rectifying sex discrimination was a compelling interest and that Minnesota’s law did not violate the U.S. Jaycees freedom of expressive association.²¹

Four years later, in 1988, the Court clarified that freedom of expressive association may be burdened by government action that does not directly restrict the right to associate freely if the action places “a substantial restraint” or “significantly” interferes with people’s ability to freely associate.²² To illustrate when government action substantially restrains freedom of expressive association, the Court pointed to NAACP v. Patterson and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware.²³

In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, Alabama forced the NAACP to disclose membership lists to the state government.²⁴ This resulted in harassment, physical threats, and threats of economic reprisal against the organization’s members.²⁵ The Court held that this harassment constituted “a substantial restraint” on the ability of NAACP members to associate for the social and political purposes of the organization.²⁶ Similarly, in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the state imposed civil liability on NAACP members purely for their association with other members who had promoted illegal acts.²⁷ The Court found that this civil liability, without specific intent to further illegal aims, constituted significant interference on the ability of NAACP members to exercise their right to freedom of expressive association.²⁸ In both cases, laws that were not expressly directed to limit freedom of association significantly interfered with this right by creating conditions which chilled the ability of NAACP members to fully associate with each other.²⁹

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Boy Scouts of America argued that being forced to accept a gay man as a scout troop master violated their freedom of expression.³⁰ For the Court, Justice Rehnquist stated, “As we give deference to an association’s assertions regarding the nature of its expression, we must also give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression.”³¹ Ultimately, the Court, relying on this deference to a party’s own stated beliefs, determined that the Boy Scout’s freedom to exclude those whom they believed did not reflect their values outweighed any discrimination caused by this pursuit.³²

B. Immigration Policy and Practice in the United States

Prior to 2003, United States immigration policy was enforced by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).³³ As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, INS was disbanded and its offices and responsibilities were divided among three new federal agencies: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).³⁴ USCIS oversees lawful immigration and naturalization, while CBP and ICE both enforce the laws governing immigration violations, customs, and border control.³⁵ All three agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which ultimately possesses the full responsibility of United States immigration enforcement.³⁶

On January 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary, Benjamine Huffman, issued a memo (2025 memo), which rescinded a 2021 Biden-era memo.³⁷ The 2021 Biden-era memo prohibited DHS agents from conducting immigration enforcement activities in “sensitive areas” absent extraordinary circumstances.³⁸ These “sensitive locations” include “schools, hospitals, and houses of worship.”³⁹ The 2025 memo and accompanying DHS press release directed DHS agents and other law enforcement officers to employ “common sense” when making decisions on when and how to carry out immigration enforcement actions in “sensitive locations.”⁴⁰

The 2025 memo marks a significant departure from the past thirty years of immigration enforcement. In 1993, INS expressly forbade immigration enforcement activities in sensitive areas without prior approval.⁴¹ In 2008, the Obama Administration reiterated this policy.⁴² In 2011, ICE issued a memo that added an exception for exigent circumstances absent prior approval, but still heavily discouraged immigration enforcement in sensitive areas unless absolutely necessary.⁴³ While the first Trump Administration relaxed these rules, it never outright rescinded the previous memos and guidelines.

At the start of the Biden Administration, Secretary Mayorkas issued the 2021 memo reinforcing DHS’s commitment to avoiding immigration enforcement operations in sensitive areas.⁴⁴ Secretary Mayorkas described this policy as a bedrock principle of immigration enforcement.⁴⁵ The 2021 memo recognized that operations near sensitive areas could prevent people from engaging in protected activities or receiving necessary services.⁴⁶ Secretary Mayorkas maintained the exigent circumstances and prior approval exceptions, but stated that DHS agents had an “obligation to refrain, to the fullest extent possible, from conducting a law enforcement action in or near a protected area.”⁴⁷

Now, at the start of his second term, President Trump has done away with these protections.⁴⁸ On January 21, 2025, an unnamed DHS spokesperson released a statement praising the new policy and stating that “criminal illegal aliens” would no longer be able to hide in America’s churches.⁴⁹ The spokesperson said;

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murderers 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.”⁵⁰

This language starkly departs from the previous administrations’ commitment to avoid immigration enforcement in sensitive areas whenever possible.⁵¹

C. Religious Groups’ Responses to the Policy Change

In the days after the 2025 memo, a plethora of religious groups from across the United States reacted to the change in policy.⁵² Catholic Dioceses and churches from around the country expressed worry that enforcement may negatively affect their communities.⁵³ Churches with large Latino and Hispanic populations expressed strong apprehension to the 2025 memo.⁵⁴ Many are suffering drops in attendance or have church members openly express unease.⁵⁵ Churches are discussing taking extra security measures in attempts to keep ICE out of their sanctuaries.⁵⁶ Some churches are concerned that undocumented pastors may be targeted.⁵⁷ These concerns are not limited to Christian churches.⁵⁸ Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish groups have also expressed their concern about the 2025 memo’s effects on immigrants.⁵⁹ There have also been several enforcement actions in or near houses of worship, the most prominent example being the arrest of Wilson Velasquez outside of a Pentecostal Church in Georgia after services.⁶⁰

1. The Quaker Lawsuit

Just one week after the 2025 memo, various Quaker groups filed suit against DHS and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in her official capacity seeking to enjoin immigration enforcement activities in houses of worship.⁶¹ The plaintiffs amended the complaint one week later to include the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and a Sikh Temple.⁶² The amended complaint argues that the 2025 memo’s “common sense” standard for immigration enforcement removes all meaningful protection from potential intrusion into their sacred spaces and constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ right to freedom of expressive association, as it will deter people from coming to meeting halls, churches, and other sacred spaces for fear of raids or other enforcement action.⁶³ In support of this, plaintiffs submitted statements from group members citing their fear of enforcement and claiming a significant drop in attendance at services and ministry the week after the 2025 memo was pronounced.⁶⁴ The plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction.⁶⁵

On February 24, 2025, District Judge Theodore Chuang granted a preliminary junction as applied to the plaintiffs but declined to grant a nationwide injunction halting immigration enforcement activities in all places of worship.⁶⁶ First, Judge Chuang ruled that the plaintiffs had proper standing.⁶⁷ He determined that the threat of immigration enforcement in churches and the drop in attendance claimed by plaintiffs as a result constituted an “injury in fact.”⁶⁸ He stated that the harm was traceable to the 2025 memo, as the policy removed any meaningful obstacle against enforcement action in houses of worship and the resulting drop in attendance was a predictable result.⁶⁹ Finally, he determined the harm was redressable because enjoining the policy would prevent the threatened actions creating the chilling effect.⁷⁰

Next, Judge Chuang determined that a preliminary injunction was proper because it was likely that the plaintiffs would prevail on the right of freedom of expressive association claim.⁷¹ First, the government did not dispute that the plaintiffs were all religious groups engaged in expressive association as described in U.S. Jaycees.⁷² Second, Judge Chuang determined that plaintiffs’ expressive activity was burdened.⁷³ He stated that the drop in attendance and chilling effect on immigrant participation constituted a burden on plaintiffs expressive association for religious purposes.⁷⁴ Citing Dale, Judge Chuang gave the required deference to the plaintiffs’ assertion of their beliefs and what burdens their beliefs.⁷⁵ Next, Judge Chuang determined that the government failed to state a compelling interest as required by U.S. Jaycees.⁷⁶ Judge Chuang stated that, as this was a First Amendment issue, it had to be articulated why the intrusion was necessary into the plaintiffs’ protected space and that the government failed to articulate governmental interest for this purpose.⁷⁷ However, Judge Chuang determined that even if the government had stated a compelling interest, the policy was not sufficiently tailored to be less intrusive.⁷⁸ According to Judge Chuang, the past policies were evidence that the government’s objectives could be achieved without resorting to enforcement in churches with “no meaningful limitations.”⁷⁹ However, Judge Chuang limited the preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, as they had only shown likelihood that the 2025 memo violated their constitutional rights and not those of non-plaintiff religious groups.⁸⁰

2. D.C. Lawsuit

The D.C. Lawsuit, filed in mid-February, presented a similar case with similar claims.⁸¹ The plaintiffs invariably contended that welcoming immigrants and ministry with immigrants are significant to the practice of their faith.⁸² They submitted statements discussing the enforcement action and monitoring that they have seen in their own communities.⁸³ The plaintiffs also discussed the fear expressed by immigrant members of their communities as well as a widespread drop in attendance that has occurred at many of their member institutions since the implementation of the 2025 memo.⁸⁴ They, like the Maryland plaintiffs, also filed for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the 2025 memo.⁸⁵

However, unlike Judge Chuang, Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled against a motion for preliminary injunction and dismissed the D.C. Lawsuit on April 11, 2025.⁸⁶ Judge Friedrich determined that the twenty-seven Christian and Jewish plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the 2025 memo.⁸⁷ First, she found that plaintiffs failed to prove actual damages, as there was only one enforcement action at a plaintiff member church and the noted drop in attendance in several member groups did not constitute harm.⁸⁸ Second, even if there was sufficient harm, there was no way to trace causation to the 2025 memo because the fear in immigrant communities and the decline in church attendance or ministering to immigrant communities may stem from the broader Trump immigration agenda.⁸⁹ Finally, she denied that the policy was redressable as there was no way to show that enjoining the 2025 memo would assuage any of the harms claimed by plaintiffs in light of Trump’s broader immigration enforcement agenda.⁹⁰ Because Judge Friedrich denied the motion for lack of standing, there was no further analysis of the substantive issues.

III. Discussion

In short, freedom of expressive association is best described as the right of people to choose whom they associate with in order to express their religious, political, and other expressive beliefs. This right is essential for the full exercise of the First Amendment rights of “speech, assembly, petition, and religious exercise.”⁹¹ This right is implicated when government action, even if unintended, substantially impacts or significantly interferes with an individual’s or groups’ ability to associate for expressive purposes.⁹² Furthermore, courts must grant deference to a group’s own determination regarding its burden as a group because they are in the best position to understand their own beliefs and practices and what places a burden on those beliefs and practices.⁹³ Under Roberts, such government action is constitutional only if it serves a “compelling state interest, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”⁹⁴ The 2025 memo creates such a burden for any religious community that welcomes or associates with immigrants; additionally, there is no compelling government interest to justify it.

This discussion will argue that the 2025 memo, properly viewed, places an unconstitutional burden on freedom of expressive association for religious groups by analyzing the results of motions for preliminary injunction in both the Quaker and D.C. Lawsuits. The first section will argue that standing is proper in both lawsuits. The second section will contend that in the Quaker Lawsuit, Judge Chuang was correct when he determined that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of freedom of expressive association. The final section will briefly posit that broader injunctive relief may be proper as the issues faced by plaintiffs in both lawsuits are not unique and are likely faced by many religious groups and institutions.

A. Religious Groups in Both Quaker and D.C. Lawsuits Have Proper Standing

In any lawsuit, the first hurdle to clear is standing. To prove standing in a suit against government action, the plaintiffs must show that 1) they are harmed, 2) by the policy, and 3) that preventing enforcement of the law will redress the harm.⁹⁵ In the Quaker Lawsuit, Judge Chuang correctly identified that the plaintiffs are injured by the policy and that preventing the policy from being enforced can redress this issue.⁹⁶ In the D.C. Lawsuit, Judge Friedrich incorrectly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction when she concluded the plaintiffs’ lacked all three elements of standing.⁹⁷

Judge Friedrich’s analysis of standing in the D.C. Lawsuit is incorrect because she did not properly consider what constitutes a harm in the context of the freedom of expressive association. Judge Friedrich denied that a decline in attendance seen at many plaintiff churches constitute harm.⁹⁸ This analysis is mistaken because the sorts of harm present in the freedom of expressive association context explicitly includes chilling effects.⁹⁹ Furthermore, Dale stands for the principle that groups engaged in expressive association, such as the D.C. plaintiffs, are in the best position to understand what burdens their expression.¹⁰⁰ While this is separate from the standing analysis, it suggests that courts should seriously consider what a plaintiff considers harm when the claimed harm is nebulous. In the D.C. Lawsuit, plaintiffs contend that the policy caused a marked decline in attendance in many communities.¹⁰¹ When a right centers around association, there is an injury when a government policy by action or fear prevents members of a group from associating. Judge Friedrich is incorrect when she states that this drop in attendance does not constitute harm.

Judge Friedrich compounded this error by arguing that even if drops in attendance constituted harm, they are not traceable specifically to the 2025 memo.¹⁰² Judge Friedrich stated that plaintiffs’ assertion that the 2025 memo has affected their communities is not enough and the decline in attendance could be a symptom of President Trump’s broader immigration policy initiatives.¹⁰³ In support of this contention, Judge Friedrich points to the lack of “objective statistical evidence” showing that the declines were a predictable result of the 2025 memo.¹⁰⁴ This conclusory reasoning rewards the government in situations where, as part of a broader platform or initiative, it is difficult to trace injuries directly to one specific policy. In theory, this could allow the government to protect an unconstitutional policy by closely tying it to a broadly constitutional scheme. Such discretion is wholly inappropriate considering the federal judiciaries’ roles as the arbiter of the meaning of the law.¹⁰⁵

Judge Chuang correctly identified that the sort of harm present in this context and in other First Amendment contexts are often somewhat speculative and less concrete than those in other realms.¹⁰⁶ He identified that the reduced attendance at both religious services and ministry constitutes a harm.¹⁰⁷ Furthermore, he correctly determined that the policy simply being one part of the whole does not disturb traceability or reliance.¹⁰⁸ This avoids the dangerous pitfalls of over discretion to government arguments that the harms of a potential constitutional violation are not caused by or cannot be redressed if they may be at least in part the result of broader policy or phenomena.

B. The 2025 Memo Unconstitutionally Violates Religious Groups Freedom of Expressive Association

Clearing the hurdle of standing of course leaves the deeper constitutional issue: does the 2025 memo burden the freedom of expressive of association? There is no dispute that the plaintiffs in these lawsuits and religious groups more broadly engage in the sort of expressive association discussed by Justice Brennan in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, and the government concedes as much in the Quaker Lawsuit.¹⁰⁹ This leaves two questions: 1) does the government action burden the plaintiffs’ freedom of expressive of association? and 2) is the policy in service to a compelling government interest and cannot be accomplished through means significantly less restrictive of the right?¹¹⁰ The answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no.

1. The 2025 Memo Burdens Religious Groups Freedom of Expressive Association

In Lyng footnote 5, the Court clearly laid out that government action which chills an organization’s ability to associate for expressive purposes violates the freedom of expressive association, so long as it creates a “substantial burden.”¹¹¹ In both suits, the plaintiffs asserted that a key part of their religious belief includes welcoming all people, including immigrants.¹¹² Many of the plaintiffs established that direct ministry to immigrants, including English as a Second Language (ESL) courses and other assistance, are part of their religious beliefs.¹¹³ Associating with and welcoming immigrants is central to fully living and carrying out plaintiffs’ faith. Thus, the decrease in church and ministry attendance because of the 2025 policy is direct evidence of their injury. Furthermore, considering the statements and public reactions of non-plaintiff churches, it is likely that this applies broadly throughout significant portions of the United States.¹¹⁴

Judge Chuang recognized as much in the Quaker Lawsuit, under Dale, the courts must give deference to a group’s view that their freedom of expressive association is burdened.¹¹⁵ This reasoning can and should be extended across the entire country. National religious groups have pointed to how integral welcoming all is to their faith, yet they have seen declines in attendance and fear in their communities since the 2025 memo was pronounced.¹¹⁶ This is exactly the sort of chilling effect frowned upon historically by the Court.¹¹⁷ This chilling effect burdens the freedom of expressive association of any religious group that welcomes immigrants because it prevents all members, citizen or non-citizen, from freely associating with each other. Furthermore, there are over eleven million undocumented immigrants in the United States; thus, the burden created by the 2025 memo is far reaching and likely affects tens of millions of people across the entire country.¹¹⁸

2. Interest Balancing Analysis

Furthermore, this burdensome policy fails the Roberts interest balancing test as it does not serve a compelling governmental interest, and even if it did, it can be accomplished by a less intrusive means.¹¹⁹ It would be hard to dispute that immigration enforcement is not—at the least—an important government interest; in fact, it may be compelling.¹²⁰ However, the government interest in this context is not immigration enforcement writ at large. It is not even immigration enforcement in all “sensitive locations.” The relevant question is simply whether immigration enforcement in houses of worship and other religious spaces is a compelling interest. Put most simply, it is not. Houses of worship and other sacred spaces are central to the daily lives of many Americans.¹²¹ Not only do they serve as places for constitutionally protected religious exercise, but they often act as community centers where people seek resources or assistance.¹²² Intrusion or the threat of it into these spaces can disrupt this delicate balance.

In the Quaker Lawsuit, Judge Chuang was not forced to address the question of interest directly.¹²³ Regardless, Judge Chuang recognized that even if the government had a compelling interest supporting the 2025 memo, the government does not show any reason why the policy cannot be accomplished by the less intrusive means the government has been using for over thirty years.¹²⁴ Since 1993, the federal government has avoided enforcement in sensitive locations, like houses of worship, because of this intrinsic delicate nature.¹²⁵ The policy has left only limited carveouts, enforcement activities with prior approval or enforcement in exigent circumstances, to protect these spaces.¹²⁶ The government’s public statements in support of the 2025 memo provide no basis as to why rescinding these reasonable protections furthers any legitimate government purpose, let alone a compelling one. The DHS statement makes vague reference to “criminals” hiding in America’s churches, yet it provides no statistics or facts to support this proposition.¹²⁷ Such conclusory statements do not support the creation of a rights-chilling unrestricted immigration enforcement policy that leaves America’s faithful in fear of government intrusion into their sacred spaces. The 2025 memo, at least as applied to houses of worship and other religious spaces, is clearly unconstitutional and should be soundly rejected by the federal judiciary.

IV. Conclusion

The decisions in both lawsuits discussed here are not final judgements and ultimately the constitutionality of the 2025 memo and its rescindment of protections to houses of worship and other “sensitive locations” remains up in the air. Lawyers and the legal community broadly should keep an eye on how these two suits progress considering the potential widespread implications.

The 2025 memo clearly weighs heavily on the minds of many Americans regardless of their immigration status.¹²⁸ Yet, it does not merely affect houses of worship.¹²⁹ Schools and hospitals are also among the places considered sensitive locations by the DHS.¹³⁰ A raid or similar intrusion into any one of these places may disturb young minds, interrupt an important surgery, or violate a sacred space. For now, enforcement has been enjoined as to a select group of Quaker, Baptist, and Sikh plaintiffs.¹³¹ This leaves countless other American’s exposed to potential state intrusion. America’s eleven million plus undocumented immigrants do not live in a bubble—they attend church and school or seek medical care like anyone else. The removal of the meaningful and important limits on potential intrusion on key shared spaces threatens everyone’s rights.

Cover Photo by Daniel Tseng on Unsplash

Author

Collin Derrig

References

1
See Caitlin McTiernan, US Cities Brace for Another Los Angeles, as Trump Deploys Troops in Expanding Immigration Crackdown, American Immigration Council (Sep. 11, 2025) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/los-angeles-chicago-trump-deploys-troops-immigration-crackdown/ [https://perma.cc/TT56-MM8R]; Myah Ward, Trump’s National Guard deployments are part of a broader immigration plan, Politico (Sep. 4, 2025 12:53 PM) https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/04/trumps-blue-city-law-and-order-crackdowns-are-also-about-immigration-00544545 [https://perma.cc/X269-HR64]; Garner Montogomery, Latino Memphis opposes possible increase in immigration enforcement following National Guard deployment, ActionNews5 (Spe. 15, 2025 12:13 AM) https://www.actionnews5.com/2025/09/15/latino-memphis-opposes-possible-increase-immigration-enforcement-following-national-guard-deployment/ [https://perma.cc/7M9S-M3TU].
2
See e.g., Natalise Demaree, “Un-American ICE raids on sacred spaces must end, says suit by religious groups,” Miami Herald (Updated July 29, 2025 9:45 AM) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article311494571.html [https://perma.cc/3SLK-59XJ]; Deborah Brennan, ICE raids near churches, LAist (July 2, 2025 2:00 PM) https://laist.com/brief/news/ice-targets-men-inland-empire-church-grounds [https://perma.cc/H3CQ-8TQD]; Collin Hodge, ICE arrests at Los Angeles churches stoke fear in Arizona that migrant raids at houses of worship are ramping up, Cronkite News (June 16, 2025) https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2025/06/16/los-angeles-migrant-arrests-stoke-fear-ice-raids-arizona-churches/ [https://perma.cc/R6JH-SPT4].
3
See e.g., Sean Scott, How Maine churches are reckoning with fear of immigration raids, The Maine Monitor (Aug. 24, 2025) https://themainemonitor.org/churches-reckon-immigration-raid-fears/ [https://perma.cc/AKB9-RQYT]; Marianna Bacallao, Why the Catholic bishop of Nashville told Catholics they don’t have to attend Mass, NPR (June 13, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/06/13/nx-s1-5431570/why-the-catholic-bishop-of-nashville-told-catholics-they-dont-have-to-attend-mass [https://perma.cc/SSD9-5FSE]; The Associated Press, Southern California bishop suspends Mass obligation due to immigration fears, NBC News (July 9, 2025 9:03 PM) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/southern-california-bishop-suspends-mass-obligation-immigration-fears-rcna217903 [https://perma.cc/3XNM-SX7W].
4
See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025).
5
See Demaree, supra note 2; Religious Groups Sue Trump-Vance Administration Over Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship, Democracy Forward (July 28, 2025) https://democracyforward.org/updates/houses-of-worship/ [https://perma.cc/9JCH-GNXX]; Paul Ingram, Teachers unions join lawsuit over Trump admin dropping guidelines keeping ICE from schools, churches, Tucson Sentinel (Sep. 10, 2025) https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/091025_sensitive_locations_lawsuit/teachers-unions-join-lawsuit-over-trump-admin-dropping-guidelines-keeping-ice-from-schools-churches/ [https://perma.cc/EE7D-Y797]; Brendyn Jones, Religious leader talks about lawsuit to restore immigration enforcement protections at religious sites, WTMJ-TV Milwaukee (Sep. 8, 2025) https://www.tmj4.com/news/milwaukee-county/religious-leader-talks-about-lawsuit-to-restore-immigration-enforcement-protections-at-religious-sites [https://perma.cc/GR74-K599].
6
See Jeffrey S. Passel & Jens Manual Krogstad, What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., Pew Rsch. Ctr. (July 22, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ [https://perma.cc/UBP9-US23].
7
See Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
8
U.S. Const. amend. I.
9
Memorandum from Benjamine Huffman, Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Jan. 20, 2025).
10
Complaint, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2025); see also Laura Strickler and Carol E. Lee, “Quaker groups file suit over the end of policy restricting ICE arrests in houses of worship”, NBC News (Jan. 27, 2025) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/quaker-groups-file-suit-end-policy-restricting-ice-arrests-houses-wors-rcna189471 [https://perma.cc/2RKQ-LHNF].
11
Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).
12
See id.; Amended Complaint, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025).
13
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025); Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403-DLF (D. D.C. filed Apr. 11, 2025).
14
See U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”).
15
NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
16
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 622.
20
Id. at 618.
21
Id.
22
Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988) (In Lyng v. Int’l Union, union members alleged that the withholding of government benefits during strikes had a chilling effect on their right to freely associate with fellow union members. The Court disagreed, stating the ineligibility for food stamps for striking workers fell short of being a substantial restraint or significant interference on the worker’s ability to associate for the purpose of striking).
23
Id.
24
NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 919-20 (1982).
28
Id.
29
See Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988).
30
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, pin cite (2000).
31
Id. at 653.
32
Id.
33
Post-9/11, U.S. Citizenship and Immigr. Serv. (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/overview-of-agency-history/post-911 [https://perma.cc/SYC6-35FA].
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1). Does this citation support the sentence? Should the cite be: Memorandum from Benjamine Huffman, Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Jan. 20, 2025); Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
38
Memorandum from Benjamine Huffman, Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Jan. 20, 2025).
39
Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
40
Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Jan. 21, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse [https://perma.cc/HC52-5FBM].
41
Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Assoc. Comm’r, U.S. Immigr. & Nat. Serv. , “Enforcement Activities at Schools, Places of Worship, or at funerals or other religious ceremonies” (May 17, 1993).
42
Memorandum from Julie L. Myers, Assistant Sec’y, U.S. Immig. & Customs Enf‘t , “Field Guidance on Enforcement Actions or Investigative Activities at or Near Sensitive Community Locations,” (July 3, 2008).
43
Memorandum from John Morton, Dir., U.S. Immig. & Customs Enf‘t, “Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations,” (Oct. 24, 2011).
44
Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.DHS, “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
Id. at 3.
48
Memorandum from Benjamine Huffman, Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Jan. 20, 2025).
49
Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. DHS, (Jan. 21, 2025),https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse [https://perma.cc/HC52-5FBM].
50
Id. (murders is a typo present in the statement itself rather than murderers).
51
See generally Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.DHS, “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
52
See Shannon McDonagh, Clergy Vows to Resist Trump’s Church Immigration Crackdown, Newsweek (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.newsweek.com/president-trump-immigration-raids-churches-2019891 [https://perma.cc/NP8Z-QA7H]; NCC Urges Ice to Refrain From Entering Churches and Other Sensitive Locations, Nat’l Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) (Jan. 30, 2025), https://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-urges-ice-to-refrain-from-entering-churches-and-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/KUD5-AS4S]; Heather Kimmel, Immigration Enforcement Action: What Churches Need to Know, United Church of Christ (Jan. 30, 2025) https://www.ucc.org/immigration-enforcement-action-what-churches-need-to-know/ [https://perma.cc/GZ6C-ABDK]; Daniella Silva, Faith leaders and teachers ‘preparing for an attack’ after Trump allows immigration arrests at schools and churches, NBC News (Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/faith-leaders-teachers-preparing-attack-trump-allows-immigration-arres-rcna188753 [https://perma.cc/HCM6-YA97].
53
See Bishop Mark J. Seitz et al., Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/human-dignity-not-dependent-persons-citizenship-or-immigration-status [https://perma.cc/6E5N-7QYM]; see also Minn. Cath. Conf., Minnesota Bishops Statement on Immigration Law and the Common Good of the Nation (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.mncatholic.org/pr2725 [https://perma.cc/EEE5-Y67D].
54
See Deepa Bharath, Latino evangelical churches gear up to face possible immigration enforcement in churches, AP News (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/latino-evangelical-churches-florida-trump-immigration-45c423716ca30f77598657f1c4952933 [https://perma.cc/B3HS-HMVC]; Marina E. Franco, Amid fears of immigration raids, Latino churches rethink how to conduct services, NBC News (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-churches-immigration-raids-fears-deportation-rcna199982 [https://perma.cc/4FES-YRMR].
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Id.
58
See CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Rel. (CAIR) (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; see also Amended Complaint, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025) (The amended complaint added Sikh); Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025) (Jewish groups joined this lawsuit expressing their concerns about the effects of the 2025 policy).
59
See CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Rel. (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; See also Amended Complaint, Philad. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025) (The amended complaint added Sikh groups challenging the policy); Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025) (Jewish groups joined this lawsuit expressing their concerns about the effects of the 2025 policy).
60
See Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403-DLF 4 (D. D.C. filed Apr. 11, 2025); see also Billal Rahman, ICE Strikes During Church Service to Arrest Migrant, Newsweek (Jan. 30, 2025) https://www.newsweek.com/ice-strikes-church-service-migrant-arrested-immigration-2023392 [https://perma.cc/PYY3-LBES].
61
Complaint, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2025).
62
Amended Complaint, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025).
63
Id. at ¶¶ 154-162.
64
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 58-59 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).
65
Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025).
66
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 58-59 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).
67
Id. at 16-29.
68
Id. at 16-22.
69
Id. at 22-27.
70
Id. at 27-29.
71
Id. at 33.
72
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 33-34 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025) (Judge Chuang also determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim).
73
Id. at 34-41.
74
Id. at 36-38.
75
Id. at 39-41.
76
Id. at 42-43.
77
Id. at 43.
78
Id.
79
Id.
80
Id. at 58-59.
81
Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).
82
Id. at ¶¶ 78-81.
83
Id. at ¶¶ 82-160.
84
Id.
85
Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403-DLF 1 (D. D.C. filed Apr. 11, 2025).
86
Id.
87
Id.
88
Id. at 7-11.
89
Id. at 11-14.
90
Id. at 14-17.
91
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
92
Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988).
93
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 653 (2000).
94
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
95
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, pincite (1992).
96
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 16-29 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).
97
Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403-DLF 1 (D. D.C. filed Apr. 11, 2025).
98
Id. at 10-11.
99
See generally Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984); Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988).
100
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 653 (2000).
101
Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403-DLF 1, 10 (D. D.C. filed Apr. 11, 2025).
102
Id. at 10-11.
103
Id. at 11- 14.
104
Id. at 13.
105
See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, pincite (1803).
106
Phila.Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 1, 16 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).
107
Id. at 22.
108
Id. at 27-28.
109
Id. at pincite (Judge Chuang also determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim).
110
See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
111
Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988).
112
See generally Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 33-34 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025); Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 ¶¶ 78-160. (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).
113
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 33-34 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025); Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 ¶¶ 78-160. (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).
114
See generally CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Rel. (CAIR) (Jan. 23, 2025) https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/[https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; NCC Urges Ice to Refrain From Entering Churches and Other Sensitive Locations, Nat’l Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) (Jan. 30, 2025), https://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-urges-ice-to-refrain-from-entering-churches-and-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/KUD5-AS4S]; Heather Kimmel, Immigration Enforcement Action: What Churches Need to Know, United Church of Christ (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ucc.org/immigration-enforcement-action-what-churches-need-to-know/ [https://perma.cc/GZ6C-ABDK]; Bishop Mark J. Seitz et al., Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/human-dignity-not-dependent-persons-citizenship-or-immigration-status [https://perma.cc/6E5N-7QYM]; Deepa Bharath, Latino evangelical churches gear up to face possible immigration enforcement in churches, AP News (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/latino-evangelical-churches-florida-trump-immigration-45c423716ca30f77598657f1c4952933 [https://perma.cc/B3HS-HMVC]; Marina E. Franco, Amid fears of immigration raids, Latino churches rethink how to conduct services, NBC News (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-churches-immigration-raids-fears-deportation-rcna199982 [https://perma.cc/4FES-YRMR].
115
Phila.Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 39-41 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025); see also Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 653 (2000).
116
CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (Jan. 23, 2025) https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; NCC Urges Ice to Refrain From Entering Churches and Other Sensitive Locations, Nat’l Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) (Jan. 30, 2025), https://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-urges-ice-to-refrain-from-entering-churches-and-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/KUD5-AS4S]; Heather Kimmel, Immigration Enforcement Action: What Churches Need to Know, United Church of Christ (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ucc.org/immigration-enforcement-action-what-churches-need-to-know/ [https://perma.cc/GZ6C-ABDK]; Bishop Mark J. Seitz et al., Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/human-dignity-not-dependent-persons-citizenship-or-immigration-status [https://perma.cc/6E5N-7QYM]; Deepa Bharath, Latino evangelical churches gear up to face possible immigration enforcement in churches, AP News (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/latino-evangelical-churches-florida-trump-immigration-45c423716ca30f77598657f1c4952933 [https://perma.cc/B3HS-HMVC]; Marina E. Franco, Amid fears of immigration raids, Latino churches rethink how to conduct services, NBC News (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-churches-immigration-raids-fears-deportation-rcna199982 [https://perma.cc/4FES-YRMR].
117
See Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 367 (1988); NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958); NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 919-920 (1982).
118
See Jeffrey S. Passel & Jens Manual Krogstad, What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., Pew Rsch. Ctr. (July 22, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ [https://perma.cc/UBP9-US23].
119
See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
120
See U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 4 (“The Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”); Arizona v. U.S. 567 U.S. 387, pin cite (2012).
121
See generally CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Rel. (CAIR) (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; NCC Urges Ice to Refrain From Entering Churches and Other Sensitive Locations, Nat’l Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) (Jan. 30, 2025), https://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-urges-ice-to-refrain-from-entering-churches-and-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/KUD5-AS4S]; Heather Kimmel, Immigration Enforcement Action: What Churches Need to Know, United Church of Christ (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ucc.org/immigration-enforcement-action-what-churches-need-to-know/ [https://perma.cc/GZ6C-ABDK]; Bishop Mark J. Seitz et al., Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/human-dignity-not-dependent-persons-citizenship-or-immigration-status [https://perma.cc/6E5N-7QYM]; Deepa Bharath, Latino evangelical churches gear up to face possible immigration enforcement in churches, AP News (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/latino-evangelical-churches-florida-trump-immigration-45c423716ca30f77598657f1c4952933 [https://perma.cc/B3HS-HMVC]; Marina E. Franco, Amid fears of immigration raids, Latino churches rethink how to conduct services, NBC News (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-churches-immigration-raids-fears-deportation-rcna199982 [https://perma.cc/4FES-YRMR].
122
See generally id.; Complaint, Mennonite Church USA et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00403 ¶¶ 78-160 (D. D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).
123
Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC 42 (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).
124
See Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Assoc. Comm’r, U.S. Immigr. & Nat. Serv., “Enforcement Activities at Schools, Places of Worship, or at funerals or other religious ceremonies,” (May 17, 1993).; Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
125
See Mayorkas, supra note 119 at 3; Puleo, supra note 119.
126
See Memorandum from John Morton, Dir., U.S. Immig. & Customs Enf‘t,, “Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations,” (Oct. 24, 2011); Mayorkas, supra note 119.
127
Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., (Jan. 21, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse [https://perma.cc/HC52-5FBM].
128
See generally CAIR Strongly Opposes Planned Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship Other Sensitive Locations, Council on American-Islamic Rel. (CAIR) (Jan. 23, 2025) https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-strongly-opposes-planned-immigration-raids-at-houses-of-worship-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/WZB2-EWCU]; NCC Urges Ice to Refrain From Entering Churches and Other Sensitive Locations, Nat’l Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) (Jan. 30, 2025), https://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/ncc-urges-ice-to-refrain-from-entering-churches-and-other-sensitive-locations/ [https://perma.cc/KUD5-AS4S]; Heather Kimmel, Immigration Enforcement Action: What Churches Need to Know, United Church of Christ (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ucc.org/immigration-enforcement-action-what-churches-need-to-know/ [https://perma.cc/GZ6C-ABDK]; Bishop Mark J. Seitz et al., Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops (Jan. 23, 2025),https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/human-dignity-not-dependent-persons-citizenship-or-immigration-status [https://perma.cc/6E5N-7QYM]; Deepa Bharath, Latino evangelical churches gear up to face possible immigration enforcement in churches, AP News (Feb. 7, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/latino-evangelical-churches-florida-trump-immigration-45c423716ca30f77598657f1c4952933 [https://perma.cc/B3HS-HMVC]; Marina E. Franco, Amid fears of immigration raids, Latino churches rethink how to conduct services, NBC News (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-churches-immigration-raids-fears-deportation-rcna199982 [https://perma.cc/4FES-YRMR].
129
See Mayorkas, supra note 119; Memorandum from Benjamine Huffman, Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Jan. 20, 2025).
130
Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas” (Oct. 27, 2021).
131
See Phila. Yearly Meeting of the Religious Soc’y of Friends et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. et al., No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC (D. Md. filed Feb 24, 2025).