Key Takeaways
• On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration rescinded ICE’s “sensitive locations” policy, allowing more discretion for enforcement in places like churches.
• On February 11, 2025, Mennonite Church USA and over two dozen faith groups filed a lawsuit against DHS citing rights violations.
• Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement in religious locations, arguing violations of RFRA, First Amendment, and APA.
On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration rescinded a long-standing policy requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to obtain additional authorization before conducting immigration enforcement actions in “sensitive locations.” Sensitive locations traditionally include places like churches, schools, and hospitals, where heightened care was exercised to avoid disrupting core societal and humanitarian activities. This policy, which aimed to strike a balance between immigration enforcement and community peace of mind, was replaced by a new framework granting ICE agents more discretion in making arrests at these locations. The change has ignited considerable legal pushback, particularly from religious organizations, including those in Georgia 🇺🇸, citing threats to their religious freedoms and their missions to serve immigrant communities.
A Legal Response: Mennonite Church USA v. DHS
On February 11, 2025, more than two dozen Christian and Jewish groups, led by Mennonite Church USA, filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This case, “Mennonite Church USA et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al.,” asserts that the new policy directly infringes on the protections offered under both federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs include Georgia-based religious groups such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Latino Christian National Network — all of which have been outspoken about the challenges their communities now face.
The lawsuit marks a significant intersection between immigration enforcement and the rights of religious organizations. The plaintiffs argue that the new policy places undue burdens on their ability to provide sanctuary and support to immigrant members of their communities, functions which are integral to their faith-based missions.
Georgia Churches and the Reasons Behind the Legal Action
Churches in Georgia have experienced immediate and deeply concerning outcomes because of the policy change. Many report a noticeable drop in attendance during worship services, as members from immigrant communities fear potential encounters with immigration authorities. Participation in community programs, such as food drives and legal aid for immigrants, has sharply declined as well. Congregants, especially those who are immigrants, are consciously limiting their visibility in public or communal settings.
The Latino Christian National Network, a prominent plaintiff in the lawsuit, has been especially vocal on this issue. In a public statement, Rev. Carlos Malavé, the group’s president and a pastor of two congregations in Virginia, highlighted how the situation has resulted in widespread fear. “There is deep-seated fear and distrust of our government. People fear going to the store, they are avoiding going to church,” he explained. He noted that many congregations have resorted to online services purely to protect immigrant families.
A poignant example further underscores the gravity of these fears. In late January 2025, a Honduran man named Wilson Velásquez was detained during a church service in Atlanta 🇺🇸. Despite seeking asylum through lawful processes—wearing a GPS monitor and complying with all ICE check-ins—Velásquez was apprehended within the supposed sanctuary of his place of worship. Incidents like these have only deepened fears within immigrant communities and raised concerns across the state.
Legal Foundations of the Case
The plaintiffs hinge their arguments on several critical legal frameworks, asserting that the policy does not pass fundamental legal scrutiny:
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): The RFRA explicitly shields individuals and organizations from government actions that significantly burden their exercise of religion, even if the government claims a general interest in enforcing the law. The plaintiffs argue that ICE enforcement efforts at churches hinder religious institutions from carrying out their missions to welcome and minister to all people, including immigrants.
First Amendment Violations: Core elements of the First Amendment, namely religious freedom and the right to assemble, are invoked. The plaintiffs contend that by allowing law enforcement to operate within places of worship without a court-issued warrant or an extraordinary situation, the government disrupts the fundamental rights of congregants and clergy alike.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The APA dictates how federal agencies should introduce or change policies. The plaintiffs argue that DHS’s abrupt removal of the sensitive locations policy failed to comply with the minimum standards required for transparency and accountability, as outlined by the act. According to this claim, the rescission was carried out without appropriate rationale and procedural compliance.
The Immediate Goals of the Lawsuit
As an initial measure, the plaintiffs are calling on the court to issue preliminary injunctions to halt immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship or during religious services. They argue that these temporary orders, pending the case’s resolution, are crucial to preventing immediate harm. In the long term, the lawsuit seeks to establish permanent protections prohibiting ICE enforcement in sensitive locations unless exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant exist.
DHS’s Justification for the Policy
In defense of the policy change, DHS officials have emphasized a focus on public safety. Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at DHS, explained: “We are protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and taking safe haven there because these criminals knew law enforcement couldn’t go inside under the previous Administration.” This justification suggests that the prior restrictions created loopholes for individuals wanting to evade law enforcement, thus hindering broader safety objectives.
Despite these claims, critics argue that the policy unnecessarily endangers vulnerable communities and damages longstanding relationships of trust between local law enforcement, religious institutions, and immigrant populations.
Implications for Religious Organizations in Georgia
For Georgia churches 🇺🇸, this lawsuit represents more than just advocacy; it underscores the daily struggles they face in balancing their religious duties with unpredictable immigration policies. Churches find themselves in a precarious position, often forced to choose between their role as spiritual leaders and their need to avoid legal conflicts or unintended consequences from government changes.
Several challenges have come to the forefront for Georgia-based plaintiffs:
- Disruption in Ministry: The uncertain legal environment has complicated outreach initiatives, with many churches scaling back community programs due to risks of enforcement actions.
Increased Security Measures and Legal Expenses: The policy change has prompted many churches to seek legal advice, adjust security plans, and even incorporate sanctuary space for vulnerable individuals.
Tension with Religious Missions: Places of worship, which have historically served as symbols of refuge and peace, now navigate an unsettling paradox—continuing their ministries alongside security concerns and fear of government action.
Broader Context and National Repercussions
This lawsuit is not an isolated event. Just days earlier, a coalition of Quaker congregations joined with Sikh temples and other faith-based institutions in litigation opposing the rescission of the sensitive locations policy. Civil rights advocates and religious freedom organizations nationwide are closely monitoring these cases. Several groups have intervened by filing amicus briefs to emphasize the potential constitutional and humanitarian implications of the policy.
The Trump administration’s broader immigration policies have frequently attracted legal scrutiny, reflecting deep divisions over the nation’s approach to immigration enforcement. This newest challenge, focusing on religious freedom and enforcement limits, could set important legal precedents.
Path Forward and What It Means for Georgia Communities
As of March 2025, the federal court has yet to issue a ruling on the lawsuit. For now, Georgia churches and congregations across the country are left grappling with uncertainty. While some legal protection might arise through the sought injunctions, the eventual outcome could significantly redefine the balance between religious rights and immigration enforcement in the United States.
Georgia’s 🇺🇸 religious institutions are taking proactive steps to navigate the current environment. For example, some churches have established legal aid clinics, and others are coordinating with immigrant rights organizations for clearer guidance. Amid rising insecurity, these measures aim to restore trust within immigrant communities and provide comfort to those most affected by the policy.
Final Thoughts
The legal battle, centering on Mennonite Church USA and other plaintiffs, places critical questions of constitutional and moral authority in the spotlight. For faith-based organizations, the outcome will likely determine their ability to continue offering sanctuary and support to some of society’s most vulnerable members. Georgia churches are uniquely positioned at the heart of this issue. Their commitment to their religious mission remains unwavering as they defend the rights of their communities in court.
For official updates and details on sensitive locations policies, visitors can refer to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ official site here. According to analysis from VisaVerge.com, these legal developments will likely shape the dialogue surrounding religious freedoms and immigration enforcement in the years ahead.
Learn Today
Sensitive locations → Specific places like churches, schools, and hospitals where immigration enforcement is traditionally restricted to protect societal activities.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) → A federal law ensuring the government does not burden individuals’ exercise of religion without a compelling reason.
Preliminary injunction → A temporary court order preventing specific actions (e.g., immigration enforcement) until the legal case is resolved.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) → A law requiring federal agencies to follow transparent and consistent processes when changing or implementing policies.
Amicus briefs → Legal documents submitted by non-parties to provide additional information or perspectives relevant to a court case.
This Article in a Nutshell
Georgia churches are fighting back after ICE’s 2025 policy change allowed immigration arrests in “sensitive locations” like churches and schools. Religious leaders, led by Mennonite Church USA, filed a lawsuit citing violations of religious freedoms and constitutional rights. Their mission: protect immigrant communities, preserve sanctuary spaces, and challenge a policy igniting fear nationwide.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Ireland Deports 32 to Georgia in Largest Operation in Six Years
• Georgia Online E-Visa: A Step-by-Step Guide to Applying and Eligibility
• Understanding Georgia’s On Arrival Visa: What Travelers Need to Know
• Georgian College Cuts 45 Jobs as International Student Numbers Drop
• Georgia May End Legal Shield for Cities Not Enforcing Immigration Laws
