Court Enjoins DHS Raids and Stakeouts of Religious Places

From Judge Freezes ICE Raids at Quaker & Cooperative Baptist Churches

We reported late last month that several Quaker Meetings filed suit to enjoin DHS’s new policy regarding immigration enforcement actions around places of worship.  Georgia Cooperative Baptists and Sikhs from California later joined. On Monday, the Court issued a preliminary injunction, necessarily concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the policy burdens their First Amendment right to practice their religions. 

Essentially the order reinstates the Biden Administration policy regarding immigration enforcement activities around “protected areas.”  Under a memorandum issued by former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, protected areas include schools, hospitals and health care facilities, playgrounds and child care centers, crisis centers and places of worship or religious study.” The memorandum states:

To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a “protected area.”

Absent exigent circumstances, an Agent or Officer must seek prior approval from their Agency’s headquarters, or as you otherwise delegate, before taking an enforcement action in or near a protected area. If the enforcement action is taken due to exigent circumstances and prior approval was therefore not obtained, Agency headquarters (or your delegate) should be consulted post-action.

To the fullest extent possible, any enforcement action in or near a   protected area should be taken in a non-public area, outside of public view, and be otherwise conducted to eliminate or at least minimize the chance that the enforcement action will restrain people from accessing the protected area. Enforcement actions that are within the scope of this guidance include, but are not limited to, such actions as arrests, civil apprehensions, searches, inspections, seizures, service of charging documents or subpoenas, interviews, and immigration enforcement surveillance. 

This guidance does not apply to matters in which enforcement activity is not contemplated. As just one example, it does not apply to an Agent’s or Officer’s participation in an official function or community meeting.

The plaintiffs sought a nationwide injunction, but the Court refused and instead made the injunction applicable only to the plaintiffs’ religious activities.  The complaint is available here. The motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction was filed on February 4, 2025, and is available here.

darryll k. jones