Key Takeaways
• On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration ended protections for “sensitive locations,” including houses of worship, in immigration enforcement.
• More than thirty religious groups, led by Georgetown Law, filed a lawsuit challenging ICE activities in churches as violating constitutional and federal law.
• Federal courts declined broad injunctions, citing insufficient evidence that churches are targeted, leaving religious communities uncertain and fearful.
Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Logan Heights, San Diego, has become a central player in a growing legal battle aimed at protecting the rights of immigrants and religious communities. This church, known for welcoming immigrants since its beginning, joined dozens of other religious groups in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s decision to let immigration enforcement happen in houses of worship. This move has raised concerns about safety, civil rights, and the role of churches in local communities.
What Changed: The End of a Longstanding Policy
For more than thirty years, both Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States 🇺🇸 supported policies that protected certain places from immigration enforcement. These places, called “sensitive locations” or “protected areas,” included houses of worship, schools, and health clinics. The idea was simple: people should feel safe going to church, sending their kids to school, or visiting a doctor without worrying about being arrested by immigration agents.
All of this changed on January 20, 2025. On that day, the Trump administration ended the old policy. This was explained in an official memo—the “2025 Huffman Memo”—which let immigration field agents decide, on their own, where to enforce the laws. Supervisors no longer had to give special permission before actions could take place in churches or other protected spots. Instead, agents could use “common sense” and their own judgment.
Within a few months, news reports said agents had removed hundreds of people from Venezuela 🇻🇪 and El Salvador 🇸🇻, some of whom were found in buildings that used to be off-limits. Many community leaders, especially those who worked with immigrants, felt this was a big step backward.
The Lawsuit: Who Is Involved and What Are They Claiming?
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is leading the case. More than thirty religious organizations, representing different faiths and backgrounds, joined as plaintiffs. Our Lady of Guadalupe Church is among these groups, with its parish priest, Father Scott Santarosa, describing the church as “an immigrant parish since our very beginning.”
These religious groups argue that the new policy breaks several important laws:
- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of religion.
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government can’t interfere with religious practices unless it has a very good reason.
- The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires fair rules and procedures when government policies change.
The main concern shared by the plaintiffs is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in and around places of worship create fear and stop them from helping the people they are called to serve. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the lawsuit says the new rules have “imbued previously safe spaces with fear” and made it much harder for religious groups to “welcome, serve, educate, and heal.”
The complaint is not just about immigrants who lack legal status. The fear has reached even those with the right paperwork. Many churchgoers worry they, or a family member, could be picked up by mistake based on their appearance or because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How This Impacts Churches and Their Communities
The effects go beyond legal arguments in a courtroom. Many churches and other houses of worship have seen their attendance drop. People who would normally come for worship, community meals, or social services like tutoring or food pantries now stay home. Leaders at churches, including Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, say even people with legal status avoid gatherings because they fear being wrongly targeted.
This has caused much stress for faith-based organizations. These groups must now weigh their religious obligations—like welcoming strangers or loving their neighbors—against the chance of putting members of their community at risk. Some feel forced to close their doors or cancel programs to protect their members. Others try to move quietly, offering services without much publicity to draw less attention.
For many, this goes against the whole purpose of their mission. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups see themselves as safe places for everyone, especially people in need. When that safety is threatened, it shakes the trust and sense of community that these institutions work hard to build.
The Legal Rulings So Far
Not long after the lawsuit began, some big decisions were made in court. On April 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich made a ruling in a related case. The religious groups had asked for a fast court order—a “preliminary injunction”—to stop ICE from acting in houses of worship until the lawsuit ended. Judge Friedrich refused.
She said the plaintiffs did not have enough proof that immigration enforcement was targeting churches more than other places. Only a few actions by ICE had happened in or near churches, and the judge felt this did not show a “special target” pattern. She also pointed out that lower church attendance could be due to fears about ICE operating everywhere, not just because of church-related actions. In other words, people might just be staying away from public places in general.
In another case in Maryland, a separate federal judge offered some help to a group of Quakers, temporarily limiting immigration enforcement near their gatherings. But this judge did not extend the protection to all houses of worship across the country.
Both court decisions left religious groups and immigrants looking for further answers.
Ongoing Fears and Questions
For now, churches like Our Lady of Guadalupe Church face hard choices. Should they keep their doors wide open, as their faith teaches? Or should they hold back to keep people safe from possible removal by ICE? Should pastors and volunteers ask about immigration status? Can they prepare their members in case of an unexpected visit by authorities?
The lawsuit has turned these questions into a matter of rights and freedoms. Plaintiffs say the policy stops them from carrying out the most basic part of their religion: welcoming and caring for everyone, no matter their background. They also argue that fear and anxiety have changed the very nature of church life.
Some people say the government must have the power to enforce immigration laws everywhere, even in houses of worship. They believe it is a matter of national security and fairness. Others, including the churches in this case, think that the right to worship and seek help in a religious setting should not depend on a person’s birthplace or legal status in the United States 🇺🇸.
Different Opinions and Debate
Supporters of the Trump administration’s policy say agents need all the tools possible to find and remove people who are in the country illegally. They claim that strict rules about where action can and cannot happen give wrongdoers places to hide. They also say agents are told to use good judgment, and that churches are not being singled out.
Meanwhile, critics argue that the lack of clear rules makes it too easy for mistakes to happen. They worry that letting local agents decide on their own may open the door to abuse, bias, or misunderstandings. This could especially hurt minority communities and put innocent people in harm’s way.
Legal experts are divided. Some point to history, noting that many laws now seen as unfair were first tested and changed when religious groups spoke up. Others worry that protecting some places but not others makes the law too complicated.
The Way Forward
After Judge Friedrich’s decision, the lawyers leading the lawsuit, including Kelsi Corkran, announced they are reviewing their next steps. They still believe the current policy goes against both the U.S. Constitution and laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They are weighing options, which could include appealing the ruling or seeking new ways to protect their congregations.
Whatever happens, the case has already raised big questions about the balance between law enforcement and religious freedom. It also shows how government decisions can change the daily lives of people in close-knit communities.
For immigrants in the United States 🇺🇸, and for the people who support them, the end of protected areas like houses of worship is more than a legal issue. It affects whether families stay together, if children keep learning, and if people can get medical care or comfort in a time of crisis.
What Does This Mean for Immigrants, Churches, and the Broader Community?
The situation remains uncertain. Some churches might choose to continue taking risks and welcoming all, while others may limit their activities or change the way they provide help. People in immigrant communities may feel less willing to reach out for help, which can lead to greater hardship and isolation.
If you are worried about how these changes might affect you, it is important to be informed about your rights and to keep updated on any further court rulings or policy shifts. Religious organizations, immigrant resource centers, and legal aid groups are likely to keep fighting for safety and dignity for all, regardless of where they worship or come from.
You can read more about current immigration enforcement rules directly on the official U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, which provides the latest policy updates and guidance for churches and other affected groups.
Conclusion
The decision to let immigration enforcement take place in houses of worship has strong effects far beyond the walls of any single church. For Our Lady of Guadalupe Church and many others, it changes how they help and protect their communities. The debate now moves between courtrooms, city neighborhoods, and national headlines.
No clear answer has been reached yet. The lawsuit could set a new direction for how the United States 🇺🇸 balances its laws with its promises of liberty, justice, and religious freedom. What happens next will have important consequences for immigrants, religious leaders, and local communities for years to come.
Learn Today
Sensitive Locations → Places like churches, schools, and clinics historically protected from immigration enforcement actions to ensure community safety and trust.
Preliminary Injunction → A temporary court order sought to stop government actions until a legal case reaches a final decision.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act → A federal law that restricts government interference in religious practices unless there’s a compelling justification.
Administrative Procedure Act → A statute requiring federal agencies to follow fair procedures and rules when changing longstanding policies.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → A federal agency that enforces immigration laws, conducts deportations, and investigates violations inside the United States.
This Article in a Nutshell
The end of “sensitive locations” protections has shaken faith communities, as immigration enforcement enters churches. Our Lady of Guadalupe Church is at the legal forefront, arguing in court that ICE actions violate religious liberty. The outcome may redefine the balance between church safety, immigrant rights, and federal law enforcement.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Justice Department sues Illinois over sanctuary laws
• Trump Administration Sues Colorado Over ‘Sanctuary Laws’
• Acting ICE director targets new raids in sanctuary jurisdictions
• Trump administration’s push against sanctuary jurisdictions curbed by courts
• DOJ challenges New York Sanctuary Law over immigration enforcement
