A federal judge has ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy allowing immigration enforcement operations to take place at houses of worship, rejecting a lawsuit from religious groups that claimed the practice violates the right to religious freedom.
US district judge Dabney Friedrich , appointed by US President Donald Trump during his first term, issued the ruling on Friday in Washington, DC, denying a preliminary injunction requested by more than two dozen Christian and Jewish organisations representing millions of congregants.
The plaintiffs had argued that the department of homeland security's new directive had a chilling effect on religious participation, especially among immigrant communities.
However, Friedrich found that there was no solid evidence that immigration officers were “singling out” places of worship for arrests. “That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” she wrote in her decision, according to news agency AP.
The Trump administration rolled back a decades-old policy on January 20, the president's first day back in office, that previously limited immigration enforcement in so-called “sensitive locations,” including churches, schools, and hospitals.
The updated guidelines now allow field agents to use their “discretion” to carry out arrests at religious sites without seeking prior approval from supervisors.
Religious leaders, however, argue the change is contributing to a decline in attendance. Some congregations say they have seen double-digit drops in worship participation since the policy change, though the judge concluded the link between the policy and attendance reductions was not sufficiently proven.
The plaintiffs also accused the government of undermining a 30-year precedent aimed at shielding sacred spaces from federal enforcement activity. However, the court noted that only a handful of enforcement actions have occurred in or near houses of worship since the change.
This ruling comes as part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s hardline immigration policies.
On the same day, another court upheld the administration’s new requirement for undocumented immigrants to register with the government, while the Supreme Court separately ordered the return of a man mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador.
Previous lawsuits have challenged similar rollbacks of protections at “sensitive locations.” A judge in Maryland sided with religious groups, temporarily halting enforcement at Quaker meetings and other faith-based gatherings, while another judge in Colorado ruled in favour of the government over enforcement at schools.
As per AP, legal experts say more challenges to these revised enforcement zones are likely to appear in the coming months.
US district judge Dabney Friedrich , appointed by US President Donald Trump during his first term, issued the ruling on Friday in Washington, DC, denying a preliminary injunction requested by more than two dozen Christian and Jewish organisations representing millions of congregants.
The plaintiffs had argued that the department of homeland security's new directive had a chilling effect on religious participation, especially among immigrant communities.
However, Friedrich found that there was no solid evidence that immigration officers were “singling out” places of worship for arrests. “That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” she wrote in her decision, according to news agency AP.
The Trump administration rolled back a decades-old policy on January 20, the president's first day back in office, that previously limited immigration enforcement in so-called “sensitive locations,” including churches, schools, and hospitals.
The updated guidelines now allow field agents to use their “discretion” to carry out arrests at religious sites without seeking prior approval from supervisors.
Religious leaders, however, argue the change is contributing to a decline in attendance. Some congregations say they have seen double-digit drops in worship participation since the policy change, though the judge concluded the link between the policy and attendance reductions was not sufficiently proven.
The plaintiffs also accused the government of undermining a 30-year precedent aimed at shielding sacred spaces from federal enforcement activity. However, the court noted that only a handful of enforcement actions have occurred in or near houses of worship since the change.
This ruling comes as part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s hardline immigration policies.
On the same day, another court upheld the administration’s new requirement for undocumented immigrants to register with the government, while the Supreme Court separately ordered the return of a man mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador.
Previous lawsuits have challenged similar rollbacks of protections at “sensitive locations.” A judge in Maryland sided with religious groups, temporarily halting enforcement at Quaker meetings and other faith-based gatherings, while another judge in Colorado ruled in favour of the government over enforcement at schools.
As per AP, legal experts say more challenges to these revised enforcement zones are likely to appear in the coming months.
You may also like
"It's wrong to impose Waqf Amendment Act on states": Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
Major charity shop chain shuts three high street stores as 47 at risk of closure
US-made weapons found in Jaffar Express hijack site, Washington Post claims
"West Bengal government is colluding": Chhattisgarh Deputy CM Sharma on Murshidabad riots
Are Trump's MAGA hats made in China? Viral video claims to reveal the irony behind his tariff war rhetoric
