WASHINGTON—Today, the DC federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to the Mennonite Church USA and other religious groups that are suing to block the Trump Administration’s policy regarding immigration law enforcement actions at so-called “sensitive locations.” The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) had filed a brief in the case urging the result the court reached.
Trump’s policy is a modification of a prior Biden policy of barring immigration law enforcement in or around such locations, 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 Trump has rescinded this extreme policy, which was consistent with the Biden White House’s general aversion to enforcing immigration laws anywhere, and has directed agents to use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. Plaintiffs claim the change makes illegal aliens fear going to their services, thus burdening these groups’ religious exercise in violation of both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In its brief, IRLI took 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 the plaintiffs of illegal alien congregants. After all, if illegal aliens are deported, they cannot attend plaintiffs’ religious services, whether Trump has modified the protected areas policy or not. Likewise, if illegal aliens hesitate to attend plaintiffs’ religious services, it is more likely because the overall increase in enforcement makes them cautious, rather than because of a modification in an obscure agency memo they probably do not even know about. But if the modification of the protected areas policy actually makes no difference to the plaintiffs’ religious exercise, they are not injured by the modification, and thus lack standing to sue.
Today the court agreed with IRLI’s argument, concluding that “the plaintiffs have not presented ‘substantial evidence’ that the policy rescission—as opposed to the administration’s broader immigration crackdown—has caused the widespread congregant absences from religious services,” and therefore that the plaintiffs lack standing.
“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 are pleased the court saw the flimsiness of this attempt to use a religious-freedom law to achieve a political result, and denied relief.”
The case is Mennonite Church USA v. DHS, No. 25-cv-00403 (D.D.C.).
