Plaintiffs in the lawsuit represent leadership from Reform Judaism, Episcopalians, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which allege that the Trump administration’s policy change is “already substantially burdening the religious exercise” of their congregations and their members. 

On Jan. 21, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice rescinding the Biden administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP at “sensitive” areas.

“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

The plaintiffs asserted that attendance at worship services has dropped as a result of the policy change and it is thus impeding worship leaders and members to freely exercise their ability to perform their religious duties. 

Kelsi Corkran, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the Trump administration’s actions are in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“They have come together to file this suit because their scripture, teaching, and traditions offer irrefutable unanimity on their religious obligation to embrace and serve the refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants in their midst without regard to documentation or legal status,” Corkran said in a press release. 

A similar lawsuit was filed in late January. The Trump administration was sued by five Quaker congregations, a Sikh temple, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship over the authorization for ICE and CBP to make arrests in “sensitive locations.”

The Justice Department has not responded to the most recent lawsuit, but it filed a memorandum in the Quaker one, saying the plaintiffs’ request to block the new policy is based on a “hypothetical dispute that might arise from hypothetical, future interactions and subsequently hypothetical harms.”

In addition, the Justice Department stated it has conducted immigration enforcement activities near places of worship “for decades.”

The Justice Department also argued that the “only thing that has changed is that pre-approval from a supervisory official is no longer mandatory.”

In addition, the Justice Department rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a nationwide injunction. 

“Any relief in this case should be tailored solely to the named Plaintiffs,” the Justice Department stated.