(UNITED STATES) Lutheran clergy and other faith leaders are asking federal courts to halt new laws and policies that make it a crime to “harbor” immigrants and open the door to immigration arrests at churches and other sacred spaces. Since January 2025, they have filed multiple lawsuits aiming to restore protections at so‑called sensitive locations and to stop state‑level crimes they say put pastors, congregants, and landlords at risk of felony charges for everyday acts of care. The cases, now moving forward in federal courts, could shape how far immigration enforcement can reach inside communities of faith across the United States 🇺🇸.
At the center of the legal fight is a dramatic policy shift by the Department of Homeland Security. On January 20, 2025, then‑Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman rescinded a long‑standing federal policy that had discouraged immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations” such as churches, schools, and hospitals.
The new policy removed the requirement for prior approval, allowing agents to act based on “individual discretion” and “common sense,” even without exigent circumstances. DHS officials said the change would help agents stop “criminals” from using churches and schools as cover.
Faith leaders counter that the move has weakened trust and sparked fear among immigrants who once saw churches as safe places to pray, seek food, and receive help.
Reported effects on congregations
Lutheran clergy report immediate, tangible impacts since the policy shift:
- Sharp drops in attendance at Spanish‑speaking parishes — in some cases by as much as 50%.
- Cancellations of youth nights, food distributions, and legal clinics.
- Pastors advising vulnerable members to stay home rather than risk an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement near a sanctuary or parish hall.
“We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on religious liberty,” said Bishop Paul D. Erickson of the Milwaukee Synod, arguing that enforcement sweeps have kept people from gathering for prayer and getting vital services. “Silence in the face of such oppression is simply not an option.”
Policy shift and legal claims
On July 28, 2025, a coalition including the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Baptist Churches USA, and Metropolitan Community Churches sued DHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV presiding).
The plaintiffs argue the January policy change violates:
- The First Amendment right to free exercise of religion
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- The Administrative Procedure Act
They say the policy chills worship by deterring people from entering churches and undermines ministries that rely on open doors and steady outreach.
The lawsuit, supported by Democracy Forward and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, seeks a preliminary injunction to restore protections at sensitive locations while the court reviews the case. The matter is pending.
Tennessee case: criminalizing everyday acts of care
On July 1, 2025, Tennessee’s Senate Bill 392 took effect, creating a new felony for “human smuggling” that covers providing shelter to undocumented immigrants for financial benefit — even if the person later gains lawful status.
Plaintiffs in a federal suit — including the Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, a local landlord, and a Tennessean — argue the statute:
- Violates the Supremacy Clause by intruding on federal authority over immigration
- Violates due process
- Violates the First Amendment
They warn the measure risks felony charges for routine acts — renting a room, letting a relative stay over, or hosting a church retreat — if any guest lacks papers. That case is also ongoing.
Legal arguments and advocacy teams
Lutheran clergy emphasize these lawsuits are not about hiding people from the law. Rather, they seek to prevent overly broad rules that:
- Tie pastors’ hands
- Scare families away from worship and services
Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton of the ELCA has called for compassionate, just, and wise immigration policies, noting the church’s history of welcoming strangers and caring for families in crisis.
Legal teams include:
- Democracy Forward
- Washington Lawyers’ Committee
- Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law
- American Immigration Council
- Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition
Their briefs highlight two main claims:
- Laws criminalizing “harboring immigrants” can be vague and risk punishing ordinary life (e.g., offering a spare room, giving a ride to church).
- The First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect ministries that serve migrants as a core part of religious practice.
They argue that when laws force a church to choose between criminal liability and worship, courts must intervene.
DHS position and continuing concerns
DHS defends its policy as a necessary public‑safety tool, saying it prevents people with criminal records from using sensitive locations as shields. But faith leaders note:
- Many who now fear stepping into a church have no criminal history and are simply seeking community and help.
- Even the possibility of an arrest near a church door can fracture trust that takes years to build.
- Mixed‑status households (U.S. citizens, lawful residents, undocumented members) are especially vulnerable.
Legal advocates warn the change leads to inconsistent enforcement and could encourage officers to seek people where they gather for care, school, or prayer.
Community impact and church responses
Immediate effects in many congregations include:
- Empty pews on feast days
- Volunteers withdrawing from ministries
- Food pantries preparing for fewer visitors while need rises
- Choir rehearsals canceled and youth meetings moved online
- Missed medical and pastoral care appointments
- Reduced offerings that threaten programs feeding families and assisting with housing or utilities
Churches are adapting with practical measures:
- Hosting “know your rights” trainings in fellowship halls
- Posting bilingual signs (Spanish and English) at entrances explaining what to do if enforcement appears nearby
- Coordinating with lawyers to form rapid response teams
- Reworking visitor sign‑in systems and volunteer policies
- Training ushers on how to respond to the presence of agents
Still, many congregations advise their most vulnerable members to avoid large events — a painful trade‑off for faith communities centered on shared worship and hospitality.
The Tennessee law’s ambiguous phrase: “financial benefit”
The Tennessee case spotlights how the phrase “financial benefit” could sweep in:
- Normal rent payments
- Reimbursement for food and utilities
- Cost‑sharing at church retreats
- Contributions from relatives staying in spare rooms
- Income received by Airbnb hosts or landlords
Such ambiguity could deter housing and shelter, particularly for mixed‑status families and newly arrived migrants.
What courts might do next
Possible judicial actions in the coming months:
- Hearings on preliminary injunction requests
- Temporary injunctions that would block policies while cases proceed
- Rulings that could shape how federal agencies weigh religious liberty in enforcement rules
- Decisions that might determine whether states can create broad “harboring” crimes traditionally seen as a federal domain
A ruling in the Massachusetts case could set the tone for federal agency obligations around religious liberty. A decision in the Tennessee case could clarify whether states may criminalize conduct tied to immigration in ways that reach into ordinary charitable and familial acts.
Policy resources and next steps for advocates
Faith coalitions are pursuing multiple avenues:
- Litigation in federal courts
- Advocacy in Congress and state legislatures for clear protections at sensitive locations
- Targeted bills to confirm that humanitarian and religious support (shelter, meals, pastoral care) is lawful
Until legislative clarity arrives, churches face a patchwork of rules and risks. Advocacy groups say targeted bills could help stabilize community services while broader immigration debates continue.
For readers seeking official policy text and updates, DHS posts its guidance on enforcement at or near protected places. The current materials describing treatment of “sensitive locations” and “protected areas” are available on the agency’s site at this page: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Protected Areas.
Closing perspective
Clergy and congregants watching these cases say the outcome will determine more than legal doctrine; it will decide whether churches remain places where anyone can walk in for help without fear.
As one pastor put it, the fight is about keeping the doors open to all — even as the law grows more complex and the stakes rise for the people who sit in the pews each week.
This Article in a Nutshell
Since January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded long‑standing guidance protecting “sensitive locations,” empowering agents to conduct immigration enforcement in churches, schools, and hospitals without prior approval. Lutheran clergy and allied faith groups filed a federal suit in Massachusetts on July 28, 2025, alleging the change violates the First Amendment, RFRA, and the Administrative Procedure Act and seeking a preliminary injunction to restore protections. Separately, Tennessee’s Senate Bill 392, effective July 1, 2025, criminalizes certain sheltering activities for “financial benefit,” raising concerns that ordinary acts like renting a room could become felonies; a federal challenge contends the statute infringes federal authority, due process, and religious liberty. The legal fights highlight sharp declines in attendance, canceled services, and strained outreach programs; churches are responding with legal coordination, rights trainings, bilingual signage, and contingency plans. Court rulings could clarify agency obligations, state‑level limits on harboring laws, and the balance between immigration enforcement and religious freedom.
