Court Brief Seeks Protection for Houses of Worship

Fair and Just Prosecution, joined by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on October 2 in New England Synod v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The brief asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to affirm a preliminary injunction issued by a district court. The groups argue that ending longstanding limits on civil immigration enforcement at or near houses of worship and other sensitive locations threatens public safety.

For more than 30 years, the federal government placed significant limits on civil immigration enforcement in or near sensitive locations, the groups say. Those included houses of worship, schools, hospitals and emergency relief providers. Enforcement in such places was generally reserved for limited circumstances, such as a national security threat or an imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm. In January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded those protections and gave immigration agents greater discretion to act in places that had been protected.

The brief argues that the change will prove counterproductive. Victims and witnesses, it says, will be less willing to report crimes, cooperate with investigations, appear in court or testify. Even when local police and prosecutors play no part in immigration enforcement, the groups argue, community members may not see the difference between federal agents and the local officials who depend on their cooperation.

Aramis N. Donell, executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, said prosecutors cannot protect public safety if victims, witnesses and community members are afraid to come forward. When people fear that going to a house of worship could expose them or their loved ones to detention or family separation, that fear can spread even to people who are not lawfully subject to enforcement, Donell said. "The result is less trust, less cooperation, and communities that are less safe," he said.

The groups point to a related ruling. In August, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction in a separate challenge to the same 2025 policy, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. DHS. That court considered harms to religious organizations and their congregants, including reduced attendance at religious services, according to the groups, which filed a brief in that case as well.

These are the arguments of the two groups, not findings of a court. The First Circuit will decide whether the injunction stands.

Read Matthew 25:35