Appeals court questions church’s bid to revive ICE’s ‘sensitive’ places policy
Who's accountable for the results?
A federal appeals court grilled a lawyer for churches suing over the Department of Homeland Security’s end to the “sensitive locations” policy for immigration enforcement over claims that the threat of deportation decreased service attendance.
The coalition of churches and other religious institutions sued the Trump administration over its decision to revoke a previous DHS policy that prohibited immigration enforcement activities at “sensitive” places, including churches and schools. During Thursday’s hearing before a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, questioning centered on the coalition’s claims that the threat of immigration enforcement led to attendance drops, and whether that is enough for the churches to sue over the January 2025 policy change.
Kelsi Corkran, lawyer for the group of churches, argued that any drop in attendance at religious services should be sufficient to allow the lawsuit to go forward and further urged the panel to reinstate the revoked policy.
“If even a small subset of plaintiffs, congregants, and ministry participants likely would have continued attending but for DHS’s change in enforcement policy for places of worship, and likely would return if the sensitive locations policy was restored, plaintiffs have standing to seek preliminary injunction relief,” Corkran told the panel of judges.
The hearing before the appeals court comes roughly 10 months after U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the groups’ effort to reinstate the old policy, finding they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. Friedrich found in her April 2025 ruling that the groups did not show “‘substantial evidence’ tying the rescission to the alleged declines in religious attendance.”
One of the judges questioned Corkran on how reinstating the policy would make churches and similar “sensitive locations” the safest places from immigration enforcement, even safer than someone’s home. Corkran responded by acknowledging that people will likely “be very eager to go back” if the revoked policy were restored.
DOJ lawyer Michael Talent also faced questions about the claims of attendance drops at the churches, arguing they are too vague to pin on the DHS policy change. He also defended the policy by arguing that immigration authorities will not disregard religious liberty rights to conduct operations at churches, arguing that the new policy instead allows authorities to exercise their discretion and “common …
Who's accountable for the results?
A federal appeals court grilled a lawyer for churches suing over the Department of Homeland Security’s end to the “sensitive locations” policy for immigration enforcement over claims that the threat of deportation decreased service attendance.
The coalition of churches and other religious institutions sued the Trump administration over its decision to revoke a previous DHS policy that prohibited immigration enforcement activities at “sensitive” places, including churches and schools. During Thursday’s hearing before a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, questioning centered on the coalition’s claims that the threat of immigration enforcement led to attendance drops, and whether that is enough for the churches to sue over the January 2025 policy change.
Kelsi Corkran, lawyer for the group of churches, argued that any drop in attendance at religious services should be sufficient to allow the lawsuit to go forward and further urged the panel to reinstate the revoked policy.
“If even a small subset of plaintiffs, congregants, and ministry participants likely would have continued attending but for DHS’s change in enforcement policy for places of worship, and likely would return if the sensitive locations policy was restored, plaintiffs have standing to seek preliminary injunction relief,” Corkran told the panel of judges.
The hearing before the appeals court comes roughly 10 months after U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the groups’ effort to reinstate the old policy, finding they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. Friedrich found in her April 2025 ruling that the groups did not show “‘substantial evidence’ tying the rescission to the alleged declines in religious attendance.”
One of the judges questioned Corkran on how reinstating the policy would make churches and similar “sensitive locations” the safest places from immigration enforcement, even safer than someone’s home. Corkran responded by acknowledging that people will likely “be very eager to go back” if the revoked policy were restored.
DOJ lawyer Michael Talent also faced questions about the claims of attendance drops at the churches, arguing they are too vague to pin on the DHS policy change. He also defended the policy by arguing that immigration authorities will not disregard religious liberty rights to conduct operations at churches, arguing that the new policy instead allows authorities to exercise their discretion and “common …
Appeals court questions church’s bid to revive ICE’s ‘sensitive’ places policy
Who's accountable for the results?
A federal appeals court grilled a lawyer for churches suing over the Department of Homeland Security’s end to the “sensitive locations” policy for immigration enforcement over claims that the threat of deportation decreased service attendance.
The coalition of churches and other religious institutions sued the Trump administration over its decision to revoke a previous DHS policy that prohibited immigration enforcement activities at “sensitive” places, including churches and schools. During Thursday’s hearing before a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, questioning centered on the coalition’s claims that the threat of immigration enforcement led to attendance drops, and whether that is enough for the churches to sue over the January 2025 policy change.
Kelsi Corkran, lawyer for the group of churches, argued that any drop in attendance at religious services should be sufficient to allow the lawsuit to go forward and further urged the panel to reinstate the revoked policy.
“If even a small subset of plaintiffs, congregants, and ministry participants likely would have continued attending but for DHS’s change in enforcement policy for places of worship, and likely would return if the sensitive locations policy was restored, plaintiffs have standing to seek preliminary injunction relief,” Corkran told the panel of judges.
The hearing before the appeals court comes roughly 10 months after U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the groups’ effort to reinstate the old policy, finding they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. Friedrich found in her April 2025 ruling that the groups did not show “‘substantial evidence’ tying the rescission to the alleged declines in religious attendance.”
One of the judges questioned Corkran on how reinstating the policy would make churches and similar “sensitive locations” the safest places from immigration enforcement, even safer than someone’s home. Corkran responded by acknowledging that people will likely “be very eager to go back” if the revoked policy were restored.
DOJ lawyer Michael Talent also faced questions about the claims of attendance drops at the churches, arguing they are too vague to pin on the DHS policy change. He also defended the policy by arguing that immigration authorities will not disregard religious liberty rights to conduct operations at churches, arguing that the new policy instead allows authorities to exercise their discretion and “common …
