Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump Immigration Enforcement Policy at Sensitive Locations Including Churches

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held oral argument Wednesday on the Trump administration’s bid to reverse a lower court’s ruling that barred implementation of a policy giving immigration officials more freedom to conduct operations in sensitive locations such as churches. DOJ lawyer Michael Talent represented the Trump administration during the oral argument.

Talent responded to judges’ questions by stating that immigration enforcement operations were still possible under the Biden administration’s Homeland Security policy. He added 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 stated that the previous policy under then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did not create a safe harbor for churches. “Enforcement is possible under the Mayorkas memorandum,” he said. Talent argued that the groups have failed to show that immigration enforcement is imminent.

He contended that “incidental effects of internal government action, even if it makes worship harder” would not meet the bar of making a policy unlawful. A coalition of religious groups is suing the Trump administration, claiming the policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The religious groups cited drops in attendance at religious services after the new policy was announced.

Bradley Girard, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the religious groups, stated that the reduction in attendance “is more than sufficient” to show the amended policy is unlawful. “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,” Girard said.

Several judges questioned Talent about the drop in attendance, which the group cited as evidence of a violation of its religious rights.

The appeals court panel did not say when it would issue a ruling on the Justice Department’s appeal. The Trump administration’s policy change 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 on Wednesday.