On July 28, 2025, several church groups sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for ICE coming into churches and church events and kidnapping citizens and immigrants alike. The case was filed in Massachusetts by New England Synod Evangelical Lutherans and other Evangelical Lutherans from Milwaukee, California, Texas, and a Sierra Pacific group. Society of Friends also sued from San Francisco and the North Pacific as well as American Baptist Churches USA and Alliance of Baptists from NC, and Metropolitan Community Churches with headquarters in Florida.
For over 30 years, it was official policy not to arrest at houses of worship and other “sensitive locations.” But the current administration reversed that on January 20, 2025, when then-Acting Secretary of the DHS rescinded the prior sensitive locations policy. Instead he said to use “common sense.”
The complaint outlined a series of actions with little common sense in evidence. A man was snatched in front of a church in Los Angeles and when the pastor yelled instructions on what to do, the alleged agent pointed a rifle at the pastor. Alleged agents snatched a grandfather dropping off his granddaughter at a church school, grabbed a man outside a church in Oregon, and attacked two Catholic parish properties in two different cities in California.
I note the Catholic Church is not a plaintiff, though they did voice their discontent with the action on January 23, 2025 saying they had already seen drops in attendance.
Because of these actions, attendance at and financial giving to churches has dropped precipitously. In response, churches and their activities have gone underground, activities are held in homes, families take turns going to church so ICE doesn’t snatch both mother and father leaving children alone, churches have stopped advertising ministries, cancelled programs, locked doors, and re-trained staff.
Golly you would think the Inquisition was here again or maybe Joseph McCarthy. If the oh-so-religious government wanted to decrease attendance at church, they are surely doing a good job.
Plaintiffs alleged that all of this violates the plaintiffs’ religious exercise and chills their First Amendment right of expressive association. The policy violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Since the policy change is unexplained and irrational, it also violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
In 2011, ICE adopted a policy that in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a terrorist ran into a church or a person inside a church was holding people at gun point) agents could enter or could do so with prior written approval. In 2021, a new policy was put into place saying it was a fundamental principle not to deny people access to medical care, education, food, shelter, or places of worship.
But in 2025, yet another fundamental principle came tumbling down to meet deportation quotas set by this administration. No explanation was given for this change, and it occurred immediately without any public comment. The new policy says:
This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders [sic] and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hidein America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.
Murderers and rapists are not hiding out in churches. They are more likely hanging around Mar a Lago. If these ICE men are so brave, why are they hiding behind masks, fake uniforms, and posing as construction or utility workers.
IMPACT OF POLICY
The National Association of Evangelicals stated that “[e]ven the announcement of this policy has caused fear, deterring some from attending church.” (Press Release, Nat’l Ass’n of Evangelicals, National Association of Evangelicals Responds to New Executive Orders (Jan. 22, 2025), https://perma.cc/77UB-H7N3.) Aren’t evangelicals one of the major supporters of the current administration?
Other examples given were an arrest in Georgia during a worship service of a guy whose GPS ankle monitor had gone off. If he had an ankle monitor on, and it went off, the government knew where he was, and that he was doing no harm. The same day in Washington state, alleged agents in unmarked vehicles surrounded a family in the parking lot of a church. A high schooler was left alone by this deportation.
In June, armed, masked men snatched a man outside a church. After a pastor told the masked agents they were on church property, one of them reportedly responded, “The whole country is our property.” In response to criticism of DHS’s tactics in Los Angeles, a Border Patrol Chief recently told reporters, “Better get used to us now, [’]cause this is going to be normal very soon.” He added: “We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” (Kelli Johnson, ICE in LA: Mayor Bass confronts federal agents in MacArthur Park, demands withdrawal, Fox 11 Los Angeles (Jul. 7, 2025), https://perma.cc/9GYV-UY85.)
This is fascism in your face.
Due to these kidnappings, some churches are offering online services ala the COVID days and told members not to come to church at all. In a California and a Nashville catholic church attendance was down 50%. In another example, a vineyard business owner was snatched outside an Oregon church and attendance in that church dropped from 50 to 12. Even those with legal status or citizens worry because of the indiscriminate actions of ICE acting first and asking questions later. “In 2021, the Government Accountability Office reported that ICE “arrested 674, detained 121, and removed 70 potential U.S. citizens from fiscal year 2015 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2020.” Ex. 9, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO- 21-487, Immigration Enforcement: Actions Needed to Better Track Cases Involving U.S. Citizenship Investigations (2021).
In January, ICE arrested a U.S. military veteran in NJ. In Alabama, they claimed a man’s REAL ID was fake - it wasn’t. Another U.S. born citizen was detained in April and of course there is Abrego Garcia who is here legally and expressly was not to be deported to El Salvador though he was. This behavior echoes the Jerome and Bisbee deportations at the behest of Phelps Dodge in 1917. Then it was a private company; now it’s the government itself.
But the government has also done it before. The Mexican Repatriation was the deportation of between 300,000 and 2 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939. Forty to sixty percent were citizens of the United States, overwhelmingly children. .
For the complaint to succeed, the protections of the First Amendment and the Religious Restoration Act must be tied to the institutions themselves. Thus, the churches argued that they are having to divert time, energy, and money that would otherwise be spent on religious activities to protection measures. Some are designating “public” and “private” spaces and preparing themselves and others on how to interact with ICE officers if they show up during worship.
The drop in attendance and public participation means congregants lose the fellowship with other members. The communal worship experience is diminished by the loss of their co-congregants’ presence. They argue that the provision of social ministries is a requirement of their faith. Today ICE is snatching people not just at worship services, but at adjacent events like food banks, soup kitchens, preschools etc. so it interferes with those activities as well.
Attendance at social ministries like food banks and health screenings is down, and the decrease has a financial impact both in terms of decreased donations and increased expenditures for security personnel, locks, training etc.
The new ICE policy has created fear and anxiety not just in the targeted people but also in the congregations, neighbors, pastors, volunteers etc. who wonder if they will be targeted or as the one pastor experienced, have ICE pointing guns at them. The actions have caused some churches to patrol the perimeter, screen visitors, lock their doors even during service, move inside, and post “private” on certain rooms etc. One church even built a private, sealed and fortified space to protect parishioners.
One social ministry had a diaper bank that had been in the parking lot but now has moved indoors. Even so, attendance has dropped by two-thirds and children suffer. One church cancelled its Vacation Bible School attended by both citizens and immigrants. One church has an 80% overall decline with a 40% decline in youth group attendance.
Some churches have had to reposition volunteers from education or feeding programs to do security guard duty. Even churches not impacted are sending money to help those who are thus redirecting resources from their principal work. One pastor held a “Know Your Rights” session at her own home after locking all windows and doors and making sure all curtains were closed. When I lived in Russia, people told me this is what Russia was like under Stalin.
One church had started a border ministry but stopped it. In one church parking lot, alleged agents parked their large SUVs and slapped on extravagant displays of weapons. This is especially galling for Quakers who are opposed to all violence.
English language classes have been disrupted as people fear coming. A flea market to help low-income vendors has been cut by a third. Signage has been changed so as not to become an ICE target.
ICE actions also interfere with the church belief in welcoming strangers. Pastors have reported being afraid to preach about welcoming immigrants thus impinging on their speech. The church argues it has been forced to choose between its religious mandate to welcome all comers and its obligation to protect its congregation.
Throttling of the speech of churches is in sharp contrast to opening the doors to religious speech at work. In a memorandum released on July 28, 2025 the U.S. Office of Personnel Management claims to be protecting religious expression in the workplace. Such religious expression didn’t need protection as it already has outsized protection.
Under existing court rulings, religious expression has moved from banned to neutrality to preferred where it is today. The memo engages in blatherskite about being able to live one’s faith – but only at work, not at your own church, which is subject to ICE raids for living your faith. The policy reeks of hypocrisy.
Much of the memo was already in the EEOC religious discrimination guidance document. Employees were already able to have religious iconography at work, just not in a public place. Employees were already able to pray any time they want, just not publicly or in a manner that interfered with work. Employees can go off at lunch to have a Bible study together in nonwork time. Employees can mention religion and invite others to come to church but cannot harass them.
That is all still true. The memo was careful to include that ,“For example, social, political, or economic philosophies, and mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs within the meaning of the statute.” That, too, was already in the EEOC guidance.
The main difference is that, incredibly, they rely on Tinker v. Des Moines, a case from 1969 that said students could wear black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam war, to claim that employees can blabber about their religion in public while at work.
Tinker was high school students expressing their own political opinions publicly. This guidance says a government employee representing the government can express a religious opinion on government time.
This is the opposite of the First Amendment which says the government must remain neutral on religion. This puts the public in danger of religious proselytizing or harassment by fanatics. By this memo, they want to encourage proselytizing at work while ICE discourages it in actual churches.
LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb, et seq. says: “[g]overnment may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Anyone “whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation” of RFRA may raise a RFRA claim and “obtain appropriate relief” against the government. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c).
The churches must make the case that it affects them, not just the targeted individuals, in terms of their speech, association, and religious activities including training, fundraising, ministries, use of volunteers, budgets etc. The plaintiffs argue that the policy is reducing the number and diversity of worshippers and interfering with their ability to practice communally, as their religious beliefs call them to do and makes it unable to urge others to join for fear of them being harmed. They argue it puts plaintiffs to an impossible choice: either violate their core religious beliefs by failing to welcome all to worship or violate their core religious beliefs by placing others in harm’s way.
The second legal basis is the First Amendment and its freedom of expressive association, which mandates that government actions that directly abridge freedom of expressive association, as well as those that chill the exercise of that right, are subject to strict scrutiny.
Plaintiff churches argue that they and their congregants are practicing expressive association when they gather for communal religious worship and when they conduct social service ministries, activities that are core aspects of their religious exercise. The church invasions by ICE violate this.
The third basis is the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act—§ 706(2)(A) because the government never explained their reasons, allowed for alternatives, considered the reliance interests of those affected, or gave any time for public input. They also argue the action is contrary to law, in excess of statutory authority and contrary to a constitutional right.
The attorneys asked to stop the action and pay attorney fees. The case was brought by Democracy Forward, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the law firm Gilbert LLP, all from DC.
As a secular organization, Secular AZ is not usually in the business of defending churches. The Religious Restoration Act is bad legislation that tilts the scales toward churches. When it was passed, there was no attack on churches and the Smith case that they allegedly were counteracting did not harm churches. They just wanted more power and got it. The First Amendment, however, is very important, though its protection has been downgraded by recent Supreme Court decisions.
But Secular AZ does not support the attacks on immigrants and anyone of apparent Hispanic/Latino/a descent, nor the use of federal officers as masked Gestapo to kidnap people off the streets and send them into danger. So we stand in solidarity with those who stand up to defend people and to defend our democracy and Constitution.
8/17/25, Dianne Post