WASHINGTON—Yesterday, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a brief in Maryland federal district court defending the Trump Administration’s enforcement policy at places such as hospitals, schools, and religious services. The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, and two other Quaker meetings, have sued over the policy, which they claim makes illegal aliens fear going to Quaker meetings.
This fear, and non-attendance, burdens Quakers’ religious exercise, the plaintiffs claim, because illegal aliens, when they attend meetings, relay to other congregants messages from God of a kind that those congregants otherwise would not have access to. Because of this burden on their religious activity, the plaintiffs claim, the Administration’s policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Trump’s policy is a modification of a prior Biden policy of barring all immigration law enforcement in or around so-called “protected areas,” including religious services. Trump has rescinded this extreme policy, which was consistent with the Biden White House’s general aversion to enforcing immigration laws anywhere, and has directed agents to use common sense when doing their jobs in sensitive areas.
In its brief, IRLI takes issue with the claim that it is this change in policy, rather than Trump’s change to much more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws generally, that deprives Quakers of illegal alien congregants. After all, if illegal aliens are deported, they cannot attend Quaker meetings, whether Trump has modified the protected areas policy or not. But if the modification of the protected areas policy actually makes no difference to the plaintiffs’ religious exercise, their claim falls apart.
“Religious groups certainly can’t successfully sue to enjoin all vigorous immigration law enforcement, on the ground that their religious exercise is enhanced by the presence of illegal aliens,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “But if the plaintiffs can’t do that, they can’t make their claim here succeed, either. We hope the court sees through this flimsy attempt to use a religious-freedom law to achieve a political result, and denies relief.”
The case is Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. DHS, No: 8:25-cv-00243 (D. Md.).
