Published June 18, 2026

Some portions have been edited for clarity.

HOLLY: And he says, “So it looks like to me it’s a very difficult case for you to prevail on, if you don’t present any evidence and you don’t argue the legal principles.”

AMANDA: (Laughing.) Ha. That’s a bad day in court, Holly.

Segment 1: A new policy that upended everything (starting at 00:35)

AMANDA: Welcome to Respecting Religion, a BJC podcast series where we look at religion, the law, and what’s at stake for faith freedom today. I’m Amanda Tyler.

HOLLY: And I’m Holly Hollman. Today we’re going to go deeper on a topic that we’ve mentioned in prior episodes, Amanda: the threats to religious freedom around immigration enforcement in and around houses of worship and that have come out of a change in policy involving so-called “sensitive locations.”

AMANDA: That’s right, Holly. And it’s good to see you again for this important conversation. One way immigration policy becomes a religious freedom issue is when government actions make it harder for people to live, gather, and worship without fear. When state enforcement practices prevent communities from safely entering places of worship or participating in civic life, the conditions that make religious freedom possible begin to break down.

Across the country, aggressive, violent, and often unlawful immigration enforcement has increasingly undermined these conditions. The erosion of protections for sensitive locations has allowed federal agents to conduct enforcement actions in and around houses of worship.

Mass raids, arrests near churches, the intimidation of pastors, and the dehumanizing treatment of immigrant and refugee communities have all created an atmosphere of fear that keeps people from worshipping freely or participating fully in civic life.

When state power is used in this way, it weakens pluralism, and it threatens religious freedom — not just in a law but in a way people live their lives.

HOLLY: Yeah. That’s a really good summary of what we’re going through right now and why we are having this conversation today. And not surprisingly, when federal agents conduct arrests on church grounds or near churches, mosques, and synagogues, people stop attending services out of fear, and, you know, we have this sense that these places of conscience and community turn into places that are especially risky.

So our concern — and conversation today — is going to center on this rollback of long-standing policies limiting enforcement — immigration enforcement — in churches, schools, and hospitals, that has made it more unsafe for immigrants and refugees to gather, to worship, or to seek basic services, undermining pluralism in our everyday civic life.

These consequences are a direct result of an action taken on the very first day of the Trump administration.

AMANDA: That’s right. Way back on January 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS for short, rescinded a long-standing policy that had substantially restricted immigration enforcement at so-called “sensitive locations” or sometimes called “protected areas.” And those sensitive locations or protected areas include houses of worship.

That policy, called “the sensitive locations policy,” dates back at least 30 years and was respected by both Republican and Democratic administrations. That policy had, you know, changed slightly, depending on which administration was in charge, and it had last been updated in 2021, in a document known as the “Protected Areas Memo,” which was issued by then DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In its statement rescinding the sensitive locations policy last year, DHS said it did not need, quote, “bright line rules regarding where our immigration laws are permitted to be enforced,” end quote, and said that officers should instead, quote, “use their discretion, along with a healthy dose of common sense,” end quote, in determining whether, when and how to conduct immigration enforcement.

Now, of course, the broader context, Holly, this change was part of the larger goal of this Trump administration to conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. And you wrote about this closer in time to when this policy was actually rescinded for our magazine, Report from the Capital, and we will put a link in our show notes to that piece.

Now, since then, you know, we’ve had 17 months so far of this Trump administration, and what’s the impact of the rescission of this policy? Well, we know that there have been more than a hundred documented instances of immigration enforcement happening around these sensitive locations. And there is a tracker, an online tracker, that is open for the public to view at protectsensitivelocations.org. We’ll put a link in our show notes.

But if you go to that tracker, you can sort by what kind of religious – or I’m sorry – what kind of sensitive location the enforcement action has happened, and when you sort for religious institutions, you’ll find a number of them.

And I just want to kind of give some examples to really bring this home and see what does this actually look like, what has this looked like in our community. So we have an example, for instance, from St. Anthony Church in Falls Church, Virginia, very close to the D.C. area. The pastor of St. Anthony’s Church confirmed that five people were taken from his church.

In another situation from Good Shepherd Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, Border Patrol was seen outside the church.

In a church in Minnesota, from earlier this year, in January when we know that there was so much immigration enforcement happening in and around Minneapolis, at St. Gabriel the Archangel Catholic Church in Hopkins, Minnesota, ICE surveilled the church during mass, impeding parishioners’ free exercise of religion as people are now afraid to attend church. And attendance at that church was cut in half, due to fear of being detained.

So those are just a few examples that have happened in this country over the last 17 months.

HOLLY: Yeah. Amanda, what it reminds me, too, going back to that – you know, the beginning of the policy change, the rescission of the memo and when I first wrote that column, I remember thinking how in the policy, it makes such sense that protected areas would be treated differently, because the importance of law enforcement on the one hand and the danger to communities on the other hand is something that should be very carefully balanced.

There’s no need to disrupt communities more than is necessary to enforce the law, and this long-standing policy reflects that. And so I think that was a really important framing, as we started looking into this issue, to just realize how unnecessary it is to have this change.

And then your recitation of what’s happened since then just kind of reflects the times that we’re living in and this important issue.

 

Segment 2: The legal response (starting at 07:59)

AMANDA: So for the remainder of our conversation today, Holly, I think we really want to talk about, so what has happened. What’s happened in the wake of this change in enforcement by the Trump administration? And we’ve seen a response, both in the courts and in Congress.

So starting in the courts, what has the legal response been to this shift?

HOLLY: Yeah. The legal response to the change was pretty immediate, and it’s continuing now. I mean, we could see this coming, because it’s not hard to understand that gathering in worship and serving the public broadly through ministries would be impacted by the rescission and change in this policy.

You know, obviously all of these sensitive locations are where vulnerable people are and important things are happening in people’s lives. But we could see that. And so fortunately, there were people speaking out and looking at the claims that needed to be – that were possible.

And there are at least four cases involving religious groups that are working to stop ICE enforcement in sensitive locations, including churches, that we’ve been following, especially because of this focus on churches and our concerns about religious freedom and our connections to the plaintiffs in this work.

Not that we’re not concerned about all people and the terrorizing of communities, but we’re really focused on some of these religious freedom arguments that people are making and how this is disruptive, maybe in ways that people hadn’t thought about.

Five of BJC’s member bodies — various Baptist groups, these groups of churches — are involved in litigation. And you can learn more about the specific cases on our website, as well as that of the Law, Rights and Religion Project, which has definitely been a leader, exploring the intersection of religion, law, and immigration.

So we’ll put links in the show notes to their report on immigration and religious freedom, and other resources. But for today, what I want to do is just kind of note some of the big-picture ideas about this litigation, so people can think about this more carefully, if they’re not, and kind of be aware of what communities are facing and how to support their local religious institutions.

The cases have been filed in various federal courts, Maryland, D.C., Massachusetts, and Oregon. So we’re kind of across the country. The religious congregations affected, of course, are diverse, because the memo speaks broadly about places of worship or really just congregations.

This is an interfaith problem. You’re listening to two Baptists, working on religious freedom for all, and this work is a concern, because it’s affecting so many people. Baptists, I mentioned, but also there are Quakers, all kinds of Christian denominations, Sikhs, you name it. It’s not surprising because most religious groups have some variety of services that are affected.

And sometimes you’ll hear these cases referred to as the “Quaker case,” the “Mennonite case,” or the “Lutheran case.” The important thing to note is that there has been this response. There’s a lot of communities coming together, because they have this common problem. It’s a common issue, and I think we’ll continue to see these cases, the people, the facts developing and strengthening the claims. I think there’s now over 50 entities involved in these four cases.

Another thing to note is, of course, litigation is a cumbersome process. The focus is on bringing the facts, making sure you can show what you claim, and then asserting the different kinds of claims to get relief for your client.

You should try to seek relief immediately the best you can to stop the harm, and you want it to happen permanently. And sometimes to get that permanent relief, you know, it takes time. It takes fact-finding, gathering, and argument in the courts.

In all the cases, the plaintiffs – that’s the suing parties – are these entities that are affected directly, like churches, and they sought immediate relief, asking the court to stop — stop this change in policy, the enforcement of it.

And in the meantime, even before the court can fully resolve the issues and say, like what’s illegal about them, what’s wrong, you know, make a determination to stop it in the meantime. And that’s called a preliminary injunction. That’s just kind of a procedural matter.

So what are the claims? The claims are under the Administrative Procedures Act, and that has to do with like, can they do this? Can they just change a policy and just change how they’re affecting the law and people’s rights this way?

The First Amendment right of expressive association – you know, that’s another First Amendment freedom, that people need to be able to come together to express themselves in commonality.

And our focus really has been — and where our expertise is — in the religious freedom claims, and the focus is on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I should say, the claims come under Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that federal law that provides a high standard for free exercise.

AMANDA: Yeah. And I think a couple of things come to mind in that summary of these cases. One, it’s pretty unusual to have religious institutions like these and churches come as plaintiffs in lawsuits. Right? I mean, this is –

HOLLY: They’re busy. They don’t want to be just filing in court.

AMANDA: Exactly, exactly. And I think that the fact that so many different kinds of religious institutions, associations, denominations, and even individual churches have come together shows the deep concern that the broad religious community has over this incursion on rights.

And, second, we’ve mentioned, you know, a number of times that the sensitive locations policies covers more than just churches and other houses of worship. It covers things like hospitals and schools and courthouses and other places where people gather for civic life in our society.

But it is notable that the lawsuits have centered on the religious claims, and I think it is in part because we have this extra legal protection for religious freedom, not just in the First Amendment, not just in free association, but also in the statutory protection.

HOLLY: Yeah.

AMANDA: So, Holly, at this point, what’s the update? Like what’s happening in all of these different cases?

HOLLY: So the cases – the first case was filed, I believe, in February, after the January policy, and these have continued. These other cases have been filed. And, you know, so far there have been two — two of the four cases got an immediate preliminary injunction, and one did not. But then they re-appealed it and may get it soon. Another one, we’re still waiting on. So they’re all at different levels in the process.

And, you know, they have commonalities of these kinds of claims, but they’re in different courts, as I said, different parts of the country, and so they’re all proceeding slightly differently.

So when I say some have been granted injunctions, that means that they are protected from certain law enforcement action right now, and the others are continuing and they hope to get there.

So I think the best way to tell the recent – where we are right now is to kind of reflect on a couple of appellate court cases. So there have been two recent appellate arguments. So, you know, they’re filed in district court, and then something happens. They get a ruling, and part of it can be appealed immediately to a circuit.

So the two recent appellate arguments, one was in the D.C. Circuit where churches had appealed a denial of a preliminary injunction. And in that case, the court had said they don’t have standing.

They said that they couldn’t show that the policy had actually affected them in the way that they said it did. They wanted to blame it on other conditions, and I’ll get to that in a minute, because it’s kind of an appalling argument for a layperson. It’s a very technical argument that you have to prove in the law.

And then the 4th Circuit, where the government appealed the granting of a preliminary injunction for the churches, so, you know, it goes both ways.

So I listened to oral argument in both of those cases, and I just had some – a few observations I’d want to share.

The D.C. Circuit, where the lower court had rejected the religious groups’ injunction, saying the parties didn’t have standing to sue, I noticed in the oral argument they seemed much more open to seeing the harm and threat of imminent enforcement on the congregations.

And the court was discussing those, about saying, again, can these plaintiffs even sue. Are they blaming the right government action on the result? And this is the idea that they were saying, you can’t prove that people are staying at home from church and churches are affected by this change in policy, the rescission – I’m sorry; that’s a hard word to say. (Laughing.)

You can’t say they’re staying at home by this change in the memo. Maybe they’re staying home because the headlines are full of problems and scare tactics about mass deportations. Right? So people are terrified, so they’re just staying home.

Well, that sounds horrible. It’s like to hide behind – it’s like, hey, We’re not doing this to churches; we’re doing this to everyone. But I found that in those oral arguments, it seemed like the court could see it much more clearly.

No, they’re staying away from churches and particularly because the churches can feel that there would be imminent enforcement on people there, because I think at the time of the oral argument, it was after what we saw in Minneapolis, and we see that no one’s safe, government’s out there and surely would come and enforce actions, even at churches.

AMANDA: Yeah. I mean, judges are people, too. Judges watch the news. Judges can see what’s happening, and –

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: — what felt maybe theoretical to a district court judge ruling on it many, many months ago, you know, fast-forward in time, that is no longer theoretical. That’s really what’s happening in the country.

HOLLY: Exactly. Then recently, I listened to the 4th Circuit oral argument, and this is where the court below had held in favor of the religious organizations. This is the one that’s often referred to as the Quaker suit, the first one.

And I want to talk a little bit — because we heard the court respond to the claim. So they were really focused on this religious freedom claim under what we call RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that federal statute that was enacted to give protection for religious practice, ensuring that the government does not unnecessarily restrict religion.

And the preliminary injunction’s granted, based on several factors. But one is: Is there substantial likelihood of success on the merits? Meaning like, we’re going to stop this action, because you got a pretty good chance on winning, once this all goes before the court.

So that claim was successful at a district court in Maryland, and then the injunction was appealed by the government, and then they just had oral argument. And interestingly, right out of the gate — I think kind of helpful – the court made clear like what was going on here.

We’re just talking about churches. Right? And both parties, when asked that, said yes.

And can law enforcement go in if they have a warrant? Right. Okay. So there’s agreement about what’s at stake, whose rights are at stake, and kind of the full impact of this.

And then the focus was on, Okay, let’s review this. What is the substantial burden asserted? Because a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim says that the plaintiff has to show that there is a substantial burden on their religion.

And then if they can show that, then the burden of persuasion goes to the other side. The government has to show there’s a compelling reason for that. They have to have a really good reason. You don’t just burden religion for no reason. And then it has to be tailored to that interest.

The substantial burden was clearly articulated by counsel for the church groups as deterring communal worship, preventing people from coming to services, the loss of the money that it takes to run a church, the tithes and offerings, the loss of volunteers that help make the congregations able to do their work, and a reduced kind of experience in worship from reduction in attendance.

I thought that was something that was fun to hear be articulated in a court. It’s not naturally where I’d hear that. I don’t know that everyone has that sense. But anyone who’s in a worshipping congregation knows that part of the experience is being with other people.

AMANDA: Yeah. I mean, I think sometimes, just to pause there, Holly, I think that sometimes on some of these RFRA claims, we think about it as an individual right. But, again, these are the – the plaintiffs here are groups. They’re churches; they’re associations. And so there’s a communal aspect to this right of worship that feels particularly well suited in a communal worship experience.

HOLLY: That’s right. And another burden is just this threat of enforcement. That’s a burden to even the idea that they could have this kind of violent coming in, of enforcing, taking people out of churches. And I think there the Quaker lawsuit spoke particularly to that, when you think about a Quaker meeting, having a certain sense that would be specifically disruptive that way.

AMANDA: For sure. Right.

HOLLY: Yeah, exactly. So the district court relied on both of those concerns, both of those kinds of burdens, and that’s what the appellate court then was really testing.

So the attorneys for the government really didn’t do much. That was the appellant in this case and kind of just stood back and said, you know, like, we should have an injunction; they don’t have standing. And, you know, really kind of didn’t offer a lot.

The attorney for the churches, I think, did a good job really calling out the government’s doublespeak. And what I mean by that is that in publicizing the new policy, DHS said that that former policy tied the hands of its agents and said that criminals could no longer hide in America’s schools and churches, and said that that former policy was unduly restrictive. So they have to have this change in policy.

But now in litigation, they say, the new policy is just a minimal change; it’s purely internal guidance about who approves immigration enforcement.

So you see what they’re doing? They’re trying to get away from the other party having a chance to object to this and to bring a lawsuit.

And I think the attorney for the appellee, the winner below, did a great job arguing against that.

AMANDA: Yeah. They were really trying to have it both ways here. You know, it cannot just be, you need to have this in order to get the job done, and really this isn’t a big change. Right.

HOLLY: Exactly. So here’s the fight at a higher level, I think. Government argues that, at a very general level, that, hey, we have a compelling interest in enforcement. But RFRA requires a much more exacting standard, that they have to have a reason to do this this way. And so that’s what’s going on in this case.

I did hear some comments from judges that kind of remind us of a bigger picture that we’ve been hearing in all of the litigation that has come out of aggressive and kind of surprisingly bold – surprise or not surprise, but whatever – very aggressive changes in the law by the Trump administration.

And that was that the judge said, Let’s just cut to the chase. Looking at the district court on RFRA, the government made no evidentiary representations. You had zero, and they had a lot on substantial burden.

So we mentioned all the kinds of ways substantial burden was shown, and the record shows that the government made no argument on the burden or on the compelling interest, and instead just kind of said, We don’t need to and, you know, we’re just asking the court to use its discretion to overturn this preliminary injunction and just do that, help us out.

And the judges that spoke up did not seem really inclined to do that. In fact, I’d have to say there was a classic line that the judge said, that I thought was worth noting, that was especially enjoyable since, of course, my sympathies are with the church congregation.

And he says, “So it looks like to me it’s a very difficult case for you” — this is him talking to the government attorney. “It looks like it’s a very difficult case for you to prevail on if you don’t present any evidence and you don’t argue the legal principles.”

AMANDA: (Laughing.) Ha! That’s a bad day in court, Holly. Right? I mean, if the judge is telling you that — and, you know, we’re laughing. Obviously, very serious case here, but I think part of this is this is not just in this case. We’ve seen this –

HOLLY: The gall.

AMANDA: Is the gall, and it’s the fact that this administration feels like the law doesn’t apply to them –- right? — and they feel almost like put out when they have to show up in court and defend their actions and answer for them.

They’re not putting much of an effort here to bring any evidence or any really convincing legal arguments. And a lot of these federal judges who have been hearing not just these cases but a number of cases challenging actions from this Trump administration, they’ve had it. Right? And I think –

HOLLY: That’s right.

AMANDA: — that you hear that in the frustration coming out in the arguments being made.

So I’m glad you listened to the oral argument. I’m glad you brought that particular exchange to light in this conversation today.

HOLLY: So these cases are ongoing. We’re going to put a recent Baptist News Global story in the show notes that shows how the lawsuits are being amended, more facts are being developed, and more parties are joining in these lawsuits. So we will continue to follow these cases and keep you all posted.

 

Segment 3: The policy response (starting at 26:28)

HOLLY: So, Amanda, with that, what has been the policy response? People are upset about this change in policy, and, you know, you’re going to see lawsuits. But I would expect also there to be other actions in response.

AMANDA: Yeah. So a quick civics reminder: federal government, three branches of government. You’ve got the administration taking an action. You see that being challenged in the Article 3 branch of government, the courts, but you’re also seeing pushback in Article 1, or some amount of pushback in Article 1, which is Congress.

And so in Congress, we’ve seen both strategies that look for a long-term solution to this issue and also a shorter-term solution.

So in the long term, you know, how could you get around this, having the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security changing policy on the first day of an administration? Well, you take it out of the discretion of the executive branch altogether.

You have Congress pass a law that would protect sensitive locations. And so there is a law that has been proposed, a piece of legislation called the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act. The bill numbers, in the House it’s HR 1061; in the Senate, it’s Senate 445.

The proposed law would limit immigration enforcement in places where essential services — education, religious activities and civic participation — occur or within 1,000 feet of such places.

And so covered locations would include not just places of worship and sites of religious ceremonies, but also hospitals, clinics, schools, childcare centers, shelters, food banks, courthouses, libraries and more.

And there are limited exceptions to the ban on enforcement in these places, basically where there are extraordinary threats to public safety. But the legislation says that those circumstances should be rare. And it also requires officers to track and report in writing all instances in which exceptions are invoked.

And so BJC is one of the more than 800 national, state, and local organizations that have endorsed this piece of legislation, that we’d like it to become federal law to protect all of these sensitive locations with limited exceptions from immigration enforcement.

Now, the reality is that this is a Republican controlled Congress. The Congress is unlikely to advance this bill, because this would be a direct repudiation of the DHS policy of this Republican administration. And even if they were to pass it, President Trump would almost certainly veto it. So really this is a long-term solution but something still that is important to bring attention to.

So in the short term, there have been some attempts to provide some restrictions on enforcement around sensitive locations and to tie those restrictions to any additional funding that Congress might provide for immigration enforcement. You know, the Congress authorizes the spending, and they can put restrictions on how those dollars must be spent.

And so the appropriations committees in both the House and the Senate, they would be the ones that would have the opportunity to do this as part of the normal appropriation process.

Unfortunately, we haven’t had a normal appropriation process in some time, and just last week, the Congress passed a bill through the reconciliation process. That’s something outside the normal funding process that provided an additional $70 billion to DHS without any restrictions on the use of that funding. And that is an amount of funding to get the agency through the year 2029.

So it’s interesting, though, because we’re still having a normal appropriations policy for other parts of government spending, so it’ll be really interesting to see if this Congress is going to try to appropriate even more money to DHS when they’ve already advanced basically funding for the next three years when it comes to funding of the agency.

We’ll put links in the show notes to a couple of articles, one from the PBS Newshour, and then another one from last week from The Hill when the House passed its version of the reconciliation bill that really details what happened at the last minute with that vote and how close of a vote it ended up being.

This was a close vote, but the impact is, for now, there is additional funding for DHS without restrictions or changing the policy when it comes to sensitive locations.

HOLLY: Well, Amanda, I know that in that process, we had a lot of friends and congregational partners and ministers who were very interested in speaking out to their members of Congress, this being only one of the kinds of guardrails that they would like to put on the funding process.

But, you know, it’s one of many and one, of course, that’s very important to us, that these enforcement actions not take place in these sensitive locations and do unnecessary harm.

AMANDA: Yeah. And I think what we’ve seen is there is – just like there has been bipartisan support in the past protecting sensitive locations from immigration enforcement, there’s bipartisan opposition to the idea of arrests happening in and around houses of worship. So this should be something that, even in our highly polarized time, that we should be able to come together on.

And so I think we’ll turn now to our listeners, you know. What can you do about this?

The purpose of these podcasts are both to bring forward information, but also to have avenues for engagement.

And one way, Holly, is if you’re not already getting emails from BJC, you can sign up for emails, and even if you do already get our emails, you can update your preferences and tell us that you would like to get more frequent updates when it comes to issues involving immigration and religious freedom.

One use of this list, as you mentioned, that we have made use of already is when we’ve had particular lawmakers who, for instance, are on the appropriations committee or serving in a place where they have special influence on this issue, we’ve contacted people and helped them meet with their members of Congress in order to make their views known.

And we’ve found that representatives and senators are responsive to the concerns raised by their constituents. So we encourage you to sign up in the link in show notes to get our updates by email.

You can also contact your elected officials and ask them to support that long-term solution I mentioned, the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act. And we have a link in show notes where you can just quickly enter your information, and the system will send a letter directly to your elected representatives, telling them that you support this particular piece of legislation and encouraging their support as well.

HOLLY: So we know that there are a lot of things that call our listeners to act, and we appreciate your interest in this topic, and we will certainly continue to keep you informed the best we can.

And with that, we are at the close of this episode of Respecting Religion, so thank you for joining us.

AMANDA: For links related to today’s show and a transcript, visit our website at RespectingReligion.org.

HOLLY: You can learn more about our work at BJC, building a movement toward a just society that cultivates and expands religious freedom for all by visiting our website at BJConline.org.

AMANDA: And sign up for emails from us at BJC and Christians Against Christian Nationalism with a special link in our show notes. Using that link lets us know that you are interested in hearing from us about this podcast.

HOLLY: You can send both of us an email by writing to [email protected].

AMANDA: You can find clips of this show on social media. We’re at BJContheHill.

HOLLY: And wherever you listen or watch, take a moment to leave us a review or a five-star rating to help more people find this program.

AMANDA: Thank you for supporting this podcast. You can donate to these ad-free conversations by visiting the special link in our show notes.

HOLLY: Join us on Thursdays for conversations Respecting Religion.