Religious Groups Lose Fight to Shield Illegal Immigrants
The lawsuit came from a coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations that claimed ICE’s renewed access to churches was a violation of religious freedom and the First Amendment. They also leaned on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in their challenge.
Kelsi Corkran, who led the legal team against the administration, issued a defiant response after the ruling:
“We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Phoenix, Arizona – December 22, 2024: President Trumps’s appointed border czar, Tom Homan at AmericaFest.
But Friedrich wasn’t swayed. In her view, the plaintiffs didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. She noted that only a small number of immigration operations had even occurred near religious institutions, and said the policy likely wasn’t the cause of declining attendance.
She concluded that fears among congregants were more related to broader ICE activity—not the specific presence of agents in houses of worship.
The ruling aligns perfectly with President Trump’s January 20 move to eliminate Obama-era restrictions on where immigration enforcement can take place. Just hours after being sworn in for his second term, Trump rescinded a Department of Homeland Security guideline that had previously required ICE to avoid sensitive areas like churches, hospitals, and schools.
Now, under the Trump-era directive, ICE agents are empowered to use “common sense” and “discretion” in determining whether to carry out enforcement actions—no supervisor approval required.
It marks a significant shift from nearly three decades of federal government tradition, and the left is scrambling to stop it.
“The plaintiffs had argued that the policy deviates from 30 years of federal government policy against staging immigration enforcement operations in ‘protected areas’ or ‘sensitive locations.’”
But Judge Friedrich made it clear: tradition isn’t law.
Trump’s Legal Momentum Grows
This victory comes on the heels of an even bigger win for the Trump administration. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 law that allows the president to deport non-citizens suspected of being tied to hostile foreign powers.
The high court’s 5-4 decision, delivered in favor of Trump, overruled Judge James Boasberg—an Obama appointee who initially froze the policy.
With this back-to-back legal momentum, Trump’s immigration agenda appears to be back in full force, steamrolling over liberal legal resistance and reinforcing the president’s commitment to law and order.
While legal battles continue in other states—one judge in Maryland recently blocked ICE activity on Quaker-owned properties—the ruling from Judge Friedrich could set a precedent nationwide.
For Trump supporters, this is more than a court win—it’s a powerful signal that the president is serious about securing the border, upholding the law, and not backing down in the face of activist opposition.
And with 2026 around the corner, the message from Trump’s camp is crystal clear: No one—and no place—is above the law.
