WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a brief in Oregon federal district court defending the Trump Administration’s enforcement policy at places such as hospitals, schools, protest rallies, and religious services. A number of religious groups have sued over the policy, which they claim 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.
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 Trump has rescinded this extreme policy, which was consistent with the Biden White House’s general aversion to enforcing immigration laws anywhere, and has directed agents to use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 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, their assertion that it burdens that exercise is false, and they lack standing to sue in the first place.
“Courts certainly can’t ban all vigorous immigration law enforcement, on the ground that the religious exercise of certain groups is enhanced by the presence of illegal aliens,” said Christopher J. Hajec, acting executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “But here it is vigorous enforcement in general, not a modification to the protected areas policy, that may make illegal aliens fear going out in public, including to church. We hope the court realizes the flimsiness of this attempt to use a religious-freedom law to achieve a political result, and dismisses this case.”
The case is Pineros Y Campesinos Unidos Del Noreste v. Noem, No. 6:25-cv-699 (D. Or.).
