A federal appeals court grilled the Department of Justice on Wednesday over the Trump administration’s bid to allow immigration officers to enter places of worship in certain circumstances, expressing concern over the effects on religious liberty that the policy may have.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit grilled DOJ lawyer Michael Talent over the administration’s bid to reverse a lower court’s ruling barring the implementation of a policy giving immigration officials more freedom to conduct operations in “sensitive locations,” such as churches and other places of worship.
The coalition of religious groups suing the administration claims the policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from substantially burdening a person’s right to exercise religion, pointing to drops in attendance at religious services after the new policy was announced.
Several judges questioned Talent about the drop in attendance, which the group cited as evidence of a violation of its religious rights. Talent responded to the various questions by pointing out that immigration enforcement operations were still possible under the Biden administration’s Homeland Security policy and that the new policy only changed the “approval level” within DHS needed to conduct operations at sensitive locations.
“The congregants seem to believe – and we point this out – that the prior policy created the safe haven that prevented enforcement at churches,” Talent said.
Talent also asserted that the policy change was not as significant as the groups suing the administration are making it out to be, stressing that the level of approval within DHS that officers needed to conduct immigration operations at churches changed, rather than a reversal of a previous full ban on the practice.
“It doesn’t create this kind of safe harbor, safe haven for churches,” Talent said about the previous policy under then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “Enforcement is possible under the Mayorkas memorandum, which shows that, again, the concerns about immigration enforcement at these houses of worship is driven more, probably, by the overall enforcement posture of this administration.”
He also argued that the groups have failed to show that immigration enforcement is imminent, arguing the groups have instead provided speculative concerns about enforcement, a point the appeals court panel met with deep skepticism. Talent argued that “incidental effects of internal government action, even if it makes worship harder” would not meet the bar of making a policy unlawful.
Bradley Girard, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the religious groups, stressed the drop in church attendance as the key to their argument for why the amended policy is unlawful.
“We think that the reduction in attendance, and again everything that flows from that, is more than sufficient,” Girard told the court. “I think that’s probably the cleanest way, and courts for years have recognized the harms that come to houses of worship when there’s a reduction in attendance.”
The appeals court panel did not say when it would issue a ruling on the Justice Department’s appeal.
APPEALS COURT SPARS WITH DOJ OVER SUPREME COURT’S TRANSGENDER PASSPORT RULING
The Trump administration’s bid to ease restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, along with other immigration officers, at “sensitive locations” has been met with lawsuits across the country, with mixed results.
In a federal court in Minnesota, a judge denied an effort by various local schools to bar immigration enforcement activity at and around public schools in the state in a ruling Wednesday.