Latest Breaking News

Case No. 8:25-cv-00243-TDC Complaint (Jan. 27, 2025)
Amended Complaint (Feb. 5, 2025) 2025-01-27 Overview: A coalition of Quaker congregations sued the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), challenging a new policy allowing immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like places of worship. The coalition argues the policy violates constitutional rights and federal laws, and has asked the court to stop its implementation. The court partially granted their request by blocking any enforcement of the policy in or near any place of worship owned or used by the plaintiff organizations without a warrant, however DHS has appealed this order to the Fourth Circuit.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Under the new policy guidance, immigration enforcement in such areas would only be subject to the enforcement officers’ “common sense.”
The plaintiffs, a coalition of Quaker congregations, seek to enjoin enforcement of this policy change and request a court declaration that any government policy permitting immigration enforcement based solely on subjective common sense is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment. Their complaint also claims that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Update 1: On Feb. 4, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against implementation of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Feb. 24, the court granted in part a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the DHS 2025 directive in or near any place of worship owned or used by the plaintiff organizations without an administrative or judicial warrant; and instead requiring adherence to the 2021 guidelines. The court also issued a Memorandum Opinion, which explained its reasons for not issuing a nationwide injunction based on the particulars of the Plaintiffs' organizations and their affidavits.
Update 3: On Apr. 17, DHS and Noem filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and supporting memorandum, which request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claims specifically.
Update 4: On Apr. 24, DHS and Noem appealed the Feb. 24 preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit.
Update 5: On May 1, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2025-05-01

Case No. 1:25-cv-00403 Complaint 2025-02-11 Overview: Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), challenging a new policy allowing immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like places of worship. The organizations argue that the new policy violates the Constitution and federal laws, and have asked the court to block DHS from enforcing the new policy without a warrant or severe circumstances. The court denied these organizations’ request to block the enforcement of the new policy, a decision which has since been appealed by the organizations.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
Over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious denominations and associations sued for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting DHS from effectuating the directive. The complaint asserts that DHS’s authorization of immigration enforcement action at plaintiffs’ places of worship in the absence of exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. In addition, the complaint alleges that DHS’s manner of recission of the “sensitive locations policy” violates legal constraints on agency action.

Update 1: On Feb. 21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from carrying out immigration enforcement activities at their places of worship absent exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant.
Update 2: On Mar. 14, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, claiming that the plaintiffs lack standing, do not sufficiently claim irreparable injury, and that there is not a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion.They also claim that the Government has a compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of immigration laws.
Update 3: On Mar. 24, Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants’ motion in opposition.
Update 4: On Apr. 11, Judge Friedrich denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating in the accompanying memorandum opinion that the Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of standing.
Update 5: On May 30, Plaintiffs appealed Judge Friedrich’s order denying their preliminary injunction motion to the D.C. Circuit. 2025-05-30

Case No. 1:25-cv-00474 Complaint 2025-02-12 Overview: Denver Public Schools challenged the Trump Administration’s new policy, issued via the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), which allows immigration enforcement in "sensitive" areas like schools. The schools argue that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy change and violated disclosure requirements under federal law. The schools have asked the court to temporarily stop enforcement of the policy while the lawsuit is in progress.

Case Summary: On January 20, 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive rescinding the Biden Administration’s guidelines for ICE and CBP enforcement actions that restricted agents from conducting immigration enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
Denver Public Schools filed a suit challenging the recission of the policy, alleging that DHS implemented this major policy change through internal memoranda that have never been publicly released, with the shift announced only through a press release. According to the complaint, the new policy allegedly replaces three decades of formal protections with vague guidance that agents should use "common sense" in deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions at sensitive locations. The Plaintiff argues that this reversal of a decades-old policy constitutes final agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that DHS failed to meet the basic requirements for changing established policy — including the need to provide reasoned explanation for the change, consider reliance interests, and examine alternatives. The Plaintiff further alleges that DHS’s failure to publish the policy memoranda violates FOIA disclosure requirements. The suit asks the court to enjoin and vacate the new policy and require the 2025 policy to be made public.

Update 1: On Feb. 12, Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order.
Update 2: On Mar. 7, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Update 3: On Apr. 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds of a claimed “arbitrary, capricious” conduct, constituting a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting enjoinment and the vacating of the DHS policy.
Update 4: On Apr. 29, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Plaintiffs lack standing, and they failed to state a claim. 2025-04-29

Case No. 4:25-cv-40102 Complaint 2025-07-28 [Coming soon - On July 28, a coalition of religious organizations filed a complaint challenging the administration’s rescission of prior enforcement guidelines that restricted immigration enforcement near protected areas, such as places of worship. The change in policy, which reverses two decades of guidance, allows the administration to conduct enforcement at “sensitive locations,” such as schools, shelters, food banks, hospitals, and churches. The plaintiffs allege the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.] 2025-07-28