Dozens of religious organizations, representing millions of Christian and Jewish believers across the U.S., have filed a joint lawsuit against the Trump administration over its change in policy relating to detaining immigrants in “sensitive locations” — chiefly, in places of worship.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) upended decades of precedent on the second day of President Donald Trump’s second term in office last month, rescinding the sensitive locations rule that largely restricted immigration enforcement officers from raiding churches, schools, hospitals, and other places to detain people suspected of being undocumented.
The churches, synagogues and religious organizations taking part in the lawsuit, filed this week, say that the rescission of the rule is a direct violation of their religious rights, and against federal law. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Mennonite Church USA, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Latino Christian National Network, the Rabbinical Assembly and the Unitarian Universalist Association, among many others.
“We have immigrants, refugees, people who are documented and undocumented. … We cannot worship freely if some of us are living in fear,” said Sean Rowe, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, speaking to The Associated Press about the lawsuit.
“Churches are, and have always been, places of prayer, solace, and safety since the time of Jesus Christ; this does not change with any new emperor, king, or president,” said Laura Everett, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.
The lawsuit names several federal officials, agencies and departments as defendants, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and others.
The religious groups “bring this suit unified on a fundamental belief: Every human being, regardless of birthplace, is a child of God worthy of dignity, care, and love,” the lawsuit states. “Welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is thus a central precept of their faith practices.”
The suit notes that it’s been the practice of the federal government for the past three decades to restrict “immigration enforcement action in or near places of worship.” It also includes an example of how the rescission of the rule has upended lives, telling the story of a Honduran migrant named Wilson Velásquez.
After Velásquez and his family voluntarily turned themselves in to authorities after crossing the border to claim asylum, he had agreed to wear a GPS ankle monitor, was given a court date for his case, and attended all required check-ins at the Atlanta ICE office. Despite these proactive actions by Velásquez, he was arrested at his church in Atlanta anyway — in the middle of a service late last month, instilling fear in the congregants who were in attendance, the lawsuit states.
“An immigration enforcement action during worship services, ministry work, or other congregational activities would be devastating to their religious practice. It would shatter the consecrated space of sanctuary, thwart communal worship, and undermine the social service outreach that is central to religious expression and spiritual practice for Plaintiffs’ congregations and members,” the religious organizations argue, adding that the new practice “substantially [burdens] the religious exercise” of worshippers.
The suit cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as stipulating that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” It also cites the First Amendment to the Constitution, asserting that both the religious freedom and right to assemble clauses are being violated by the new policy.
The suit seeks preliminary, and eventually permanent, injunctions prohibiting the government “from carrying out immigration enforcement activities … [at] places of worship or during religious ceremonies, absent exigent circumstances or the existence and planned execution of a judicial warrant.”
The lawsuit filed by these organizations is similar to one filed late in January by five Quaker congregations in the U.S., which similarly asserts that the rescission of the sensitive locations policy is unlawful and unconstitutional. Since that suit was filed, a Sikh temple and a Baptist church have signed on as co-litigants.
Examples abound of religious organizations across the country becoming leaders in resisting the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policies.
“I will do whatever I can to protect the people that I serve. I’m willing to — I’m not joking — even put myself in the middle between [an immigration agent] and my congregation,” said Carlos Ramirez, a Pentecostal pastor, speaking to The Los Angeles Times last month.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.