Faith groups challenged DHS policy change rescinding protections for religious sites, citing religious freedom violations
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a coalition of religious organizations’ request to block the Department of Homeland Security’s January 2025 decision to eliminate a policy that limited immigration enforcement near churches and other religious locations.
The lawsuit, filed by Mennonite Church USA and 26 other faith-based groups, alleged that DHS’s policy shift violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich issued the decision on April 12, 2025, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
For over three decades, DHS and its predecessor agencies followed a policy limiting enforcement actions at “sensitive locations” such as schools and religious institutions. The practice was formalized in a 1993 INS memorandum and reaffirmed in 2021 by then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The policy generally required advance supervisory approval or the presence of exigent circumstances for enforcement actions in or near these locations.
However, on January 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memorandum rescinding the sensitive locations policy. Huffman’s memorandum eliminated prior restrictions and instructed officers to use discretion and “a healthy dose of common sense” when conducting immigration enforcement, even near religious sites. ICE’s acting director later delegated enforcement decisions to regional field officers.
The plaintiffs, including Christian and Jewish denominations with congregations serving immigrant communities, argued that the rescission exposes them to enforcement actions that interfere with worship and religious service programs. They cited specific incidents of ICE activity, including a church daycare visit in Atlanta and surveillance of food pantries and youth programs at churches in California.
Judge Friedrich’s opinion emphasized that while plaintiffs may have legitimate concerns, they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their constitutional or statutory claims at this stage. The court also found that DHS’s policy change fell within the agency’s discretion and was not subject to the heightened scrutiny plaintiffs sought under RFRA.
The plaintiffs had sought immediate relief to reinstate protections for their congregations, but the court declined to intervene before a full trial. The ruling does not end the case, which will continue as the plaintiffs pursue their underlying legal claims.
No court date has yet been set for trial, but parties are expected to proceed to discovery in the coming months.
Link to decision: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0403-30