Quaker Meetings Obtain Temporary Restraining Order Against ICE Policy Change

The Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as the Quakers, has taken legal action against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Trump administration over a policy change affecting religious gatherings. Since 1993, federal immigration enforcement agencies have followed policy guidance that limits enforcement actions in or near sensitive areas, including places of worship. In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum reinforcing this policy, stating that ICE should, “to the fullest extent possible,” avoid enforcement actions in or near protected areas, including religious sites. The guidance outlined six specific circumstances under which such actions might be permissible.

In January 2025, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security revoked this memorandum, replacing it with a policy that instructed ICE officers to use “discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense” when deciding whether to take enforcement actions near protected areas. This shift prompted several Quaker meetings, along with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Sikh Temple Sacramento, to file a lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that the new policy violated their First Amendment rights to religious liberty and breached the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A district judge in the District of Maryland recently granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, halting the implementation of the revised policy. A temporary restraining order is a short-term injunction that prevents the government from taking certain actions while the court evaluates the case. The court’s decision was based on its determination that the plaintiffs had standing, meaning they suffered an actual harm that could be addressed through legal action. The Quaker meetings demonstrated that some congregants had stopped attending services due to fears of arrest or deportation, and others had advised congregants to avoid attendance to prevent such risks. This, the court found, harmed the religious community’s ability to function as a body of worship.

The court also ruled that the policy change imposed a significant burden on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. It emphasized that the new policy deterred individuals from attending religious services, thereby restricting their expressive association. The court highlighted the financial burden on religious institutions, as well as the broader impact on religious practice and community cohesion. The ruling underscores the importance of protecting religious freedom and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights.

The case raises important questions about the balance between immigration enforcement and the protection of religious liberty. The Quakers’ legal action reflects a broader concern among religious communities about the potential for government policies to infringe on their rights to worship freely. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome may set a precedent for how religious institutions are treated in the context of immigration enforcement. The court’s decision aligns with the principle of protecting the vulnerable, as seen in Proverbs 31:8-9, which calls for defending the rights of the marginalized.

Source: Read the original report