Boston, MA — Today attorneys representing a coalition of faith groups requested that a federal district court in Massachusetts permanently prohibit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from conducting immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship. In their motion for summary judgment filed today, the groups, representing over 7,000 religious congregations nationwide, contend that by removing longstanding protections for religious groups, the federal government violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“It is deeply unsettling that a federal agent in tactical gear could, on basically his own whim, interrupt a congregation to carry out an immigration raid,” said Ryan Downer, legal director at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “This unchecked power raises serious concerns about the sanctity of religious gatherings, such as routine worship services, weddings and funerals. We’re asking the Court to end it.”
For decades, DHS had a policy prohibiting immigration enforcement at places of worship, except in exigent circumstances. In January 2025, DHS adopted a new policy, leaving the decision of whether to enter a church to conduct an arrest at such sensitive locations to the discretion of individual street agents. This past February, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking DHS’s new policy as to some of the faith groups. The summary judgment motion filed today asks the Court to make the injunction permanent and to extend it to additional religious groups, including congregations that comprise the DC Baptist Convention and Metro DC Synod and Delaware/Maryland Synod.
The motion references several instances of enforcement on the grounds of churches represented in the lawsuit. The motion details, for example, how “Immigration agents used one Minneapolis Area Synod church’s parking lot for surveillance, arresting drivers passing the church”; that “ICE agents attempted to enter a Metropolitan New York Synod church without a warrant and were denied entry; that “[t]hey used a Sierra Pacific Synod congregation’s parking lot as a staging ground, with unmarked SUVs in the lot and men standing around donning weapons and vests marking them as federal law enforcement”; and that “[a]round twenty masked agents used a Southwest California Synod church’s parking lot, without permission, for an apparent immigration-enforcement action, as videos of the incident showed the agents escorting individuals with their hands zip-tied.” And “[i]n one particularly horrifying incident, ICE agents arrested a man in the parking lot of an American Baptist Churches USA member in Minneapolis while families were dropping off children at preschool in the church building. In front of a crowd of clergy, staff, congregants, and family members, the ICE agents pinned the man face down on the snow-covered parking lot while he pleaded for his life, before loading him into the back of an SUV and driving off.”
The lawsuit was filed by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Democracy Forward, and Gilbert LLP on behalf of: the New England, Greater Milwaukee, Southwest California, Southwestern Texas, Sierra Pacific, Metropolitan New York, Northwest Washington, Minneapolis Area, Delaware-Maryland, Metro D.C., Southeastern, Metropolitan Chicago, Pacifica, and Upstate New York Synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; San Francisco Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; North Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; American Baptist Churches USA; Alliance of Baptists; D.C. Baptist Convention; Metropolitan Community Churches; and Southern New England Conference, United Church of Christ.
The case is New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, et al., v. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (Civil Case No. 4:25-cv-40102-FDS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Central Division.
Read the amended complaint here.
Read the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment here.