Faith, Law, and the Fight for Justice: A Progressive Christian Perspective

The recent legal battle over the rescission of the "sensitive locations" policy by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) raises significant questions about the intersection of religious freedom, immigration enforcement, and constitutional law. This policy, which had been in place for over three decades, restricted immigration enforcement actions in or near places of worship, schools, and other protected areas.

Its removal has prompted a lawsuit by a coalition of 27 faith-based organizations, including The Episcopal Church and Mennonite Church USA, who argue that the policy change violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The legal arguments presented in this case provide a critical lens through which to examine the broader implications for religious communities and their ability to exercise their faith freely.

Under RFRA (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.), the government is prohibited from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it can demonstrate that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The plaintiffs in this case argue that the rescission of the sensitive locations policy imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise by creating fear among immigrant congregants and disrupting their ability to worship and serve their communities. They contend that the government has failed to provide a compelling justification for this policy change, let alone demonstrate that it is the least restrictive means of achieving its objectives. This argument draws on precedent established in cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), where the Supreme Court held that RFRA requires the government to accommodate religious exercise unless it can meet this stringent standard.

The First Amendment further protects the right to free exercise of religion and expressive association. By allowing immigration enforcement actions in places of worship, the government risks chilling the ability of faith communities to gather, worship, and minister to their congregants. This interference raises serious constitutional concerns, as it strikes at the heart of religious freedom and the sanctity of sacred spaces. The plaintiffs argue that this policy change violates the principles articulated in cases such as Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), where the Supreme Court held that laws burdening religious exercise must be neutral and generally applicable, or else must satisfy strict scrutiny. The rescission of the sensitive locations policy, they contend, fails to meet this standard, as it disproportionately impacts religious communities and their ability to fulfil their spiritual and moral obligations.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides an additional legal framework for challenging the policy change. Under the APA, agency actions must not be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The plaintiffs argue that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for rescinding the sensitive locations policy, in violation of the APA's requirements. This argument is bolstered by precedent such as Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), where the Supreme Court held that agencies must provide a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. The plaintiffs contend that DHS's decision to rescind the policy lacks such a rational connection, as it fails to account for the significant reliance interests of faith communities and the potential harm to vulnerable populations.

The recent court decision by United States District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, denying a preliminary injunction against the policy rescission highlights the challenges faced by the plaintiffs. While the court acknowledged the concerns raised by faith communities, it ultimately found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of standing at this stage. This decision underscores the importance of continued legal advocacy to protect the rights of immigrants and faith communities. The court's analysis of standing reflects the broader difficulties of establishing concrete and particularised harm in cases involving systemic policy changes. However, the plaintiffs' arguments regarding RFRA, the First Amendment, and the APA remain compelling and warrant further judicial consideration.

The intersection of law and religion is a complex and often contentious space, but it is one that demands careful analysis and thoughtful engagement. The legal principles at stake in this case have far-reaching implications for the ability of faith communities to exercise their religious beliefs freely and without fear. As this litigation continues, it will be critical to monitor how the courts balance the competing interests of religious freedom, immigration enforcement, and governmental authority. The outcome of this case will not only shape the legal landscape but also serve as a reflection of our collective commitment to justice, compassion, and the protection of fundamental rights.

For Christians, this case also serves as a reminder of our calling to stand with the marginalised and to advocate for policies that reflect the teachings of Christ. The biblical mandate to welcome the stranger and care for the vulnerable compels us to engage with these legal and moral questions, ensuring that our faith is not only professed but also practiced in the pursuit of justice and mercy.