Here’s what happened.
A coalition of over two dozen Christian and Jewish groups, representing millions of Americans, is challenging a recent policy change by the Trump administration that gives immigration agents more authority to make arrests at houses of worship. Among the organizations involved are large religious groups such as the Episcopal Church, Reform Judaism, Mennonites, and Unitarian Universalists, who argue that this move threatens their ability to provide support and services to immigrants, particularly those living in the U.S. illegally.
Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit claims the new policy spreads fear of immigration raids, deterring many from attending worship services and participating in essential community programs like food banks and homeless shelters. This, the plaintiffs argue, infringes upon their religious freedom, which includes their mission to serve and minister to all people, including undocumented immigrants.
The plaintiffs, including influential denominations like Reform Judaism and the Episcopal Church, argue that their ability to carry out their religious duties is compromised when their communities are afraid to gather. They point out that religious institutions have historically been sanctuaries for those seeking refuge, and this new policy is disrupting their sacred role.
The Department of Justice, in response to a similar case filed by a group of Quaker congregations, has argued that enforcement at religious sites is not unprecedented and that agents have always had the discretion to act in these places. The Trump administration defends the policy by asserting that it simply allows immigration agents to make arrests without needing prior approval, something they say is necessary to enforce the law more effectively.
However, many conservative legal experts and religious leaders disagree with the new policy. Mat Staver, a prominent conservative legal voice, argues that places of worship should not be immune to law enforcement, as religious freedom does not extend to harboring criminals. Others, however, warn that by undermining the long-standing tradition of sanctuary in religious spaces, the policy could erode trust between vulnerable communities and their places of worship.
For those challenging the policy, the case represents not just a legal battle but a moral one, as they seek to uphold the tradition of welcoming all people into their faith communities. They argue that the Trump administration’s policy is not only an overreach but a clear violation of the values that many Americans hold dear—the belief that religious institutions should be places of safety, compassion, and support for those in need. As this case continues, it will undoubtedly spark further debate over the intersection of immigration enforcement, religious freedom, and the role of churches and synagogues in American society.