Coalition of churches and Jewish groups challenges new ICE enforcement policy
Lawsuit points to the Bible in explaining why the faithful care about immigrants
Every human being, regardless of birthplace, is a child of God worthy of dignity, care, and love.
It isn’t often you see words such as those in a legal action, but they’re front and center in the first paragraph of a lawsuit 27 churches and other religious organizations filed against the federal government1 this morning to challenge the new policy that makes it easier for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to enter places of worship as part of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
The plaintiffs, representing millions of Americans, include entities of the country’s largest mainline Protestant churches, including the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopal Church, as well as some more theologically conservative denominations; several Jewish organizations; and some smaller entities rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition such as the Unitarian Universalist Association.2
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Plaintiffs cite ‘imminent risk’
The plaintiffs claim that churches or synagogues affiliated with them face “an imminent risk of an immigration enforcement action” that could disrupt worship gatherings or otherwise prevent them from carrying out missions that frequently include various types of care or support for immigrants regardless of their legal status.
The lawsuit emphasizes that members of the organizations do not see their concern for immigrants as optional to their religious practices. It says, for example, that the most frequent commandment given in the Torah, a section of scripture shared by Jews and Christians, is to welcome “the stranger.” And it points out that Jesus Christ not only repeated this command, but self-identified with immigrants when he said: “For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.”3
The lawsuit is a challenge to a decision made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, to rescind an earlier policy that required strict review of decisions to raid or otherwise enter “sensitive locations” such as churches, health-care facilities and churches. Under the new policy, ICE agents are required to use only their own discretion and common sense in deciding when to enter such locations.
The lawsuit makes essentially the same legal claims as those made in a separate lawsuit filed earlier by a group of Quakers:
Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which generally requires the federal government to use the “least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling government purpose” when its actions adversely affect the exercise of religion.
Interference in the freedom of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment. The suit says that the plaintiffs use their right to such association when “their religious leaders, congregants, and other participants assemble for religious worship and instruction, for the exchange of religious ideas and experiences, and for social service ministries that put their faith into action.”
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which prevents federal agencies from engaging in “arbitrary and capricious” actions and requires that various procedures be followed when changing policies.
The lawsuit seeks temporary and permanent injunctions against immigration enforcement actions or during religious ceremonies “absent exigent circumstances or the existence and planned execution of a judicial warrant.”
The federal government has yet to formally respond to the lawsuit. But it likely will make the same legal arguments that it has in the Quaker lawsuit. They included that there is insufficient basis to issue injunction because the alleged harm is only hypothetical. The government also said that if there is an injunction, it shouldn’t apply to all religious organizations, just those where alleged harm has been shown.
Specifically, the defendants are the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kristi Noem, secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Peter Flores, the Customs and Border Protection acting commissioner; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Caleb Vitello, the acting director of ICE.
The plaintiffs are the Mennonite Church USA, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of the Brethren, the Convención Bautista Hispana de Texas, the Episcopal Church, Fellowship Southwest, Friends General conference, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the General Commission on Religion and Race of the United Methodist Church, the Latino Christian National Network, the Massachusetts Council of Churches, the New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, the New York State Council of Churches, the North Carolina Council of Churches, the North General Conference of the United Methodist Church, the Rabbinical Assembly, Reconstructing Judaism, the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, the Wisconsin Council of Churches, and Wisdom.
Matthew 25:35. Many translations of the Bible use “stranger” to refer to a foreigner.
.