politics
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump Immigration Enforcement Policy at Sensitive Locations Including Churches
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s effort to reverse a lower court ruling blocking expanded immigration operations at sensitive locations including churches. A coalition of religious groups argues the policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, citing drops in attendance.
May 6, 6:49 PM·2m read1 source
Washington ExaminerAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
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.
