Staff Reports
A federal judge in Maryland has thrown a wrench in the Trump administration’s new approach to immigration enforcement, which would grant immigration officers the liberty to make arrests practically anywhere—including sacred spaces like churches. Judge Theodore D. Chuang claims that this newfound freedom for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would infringe upon the rights of religious institutions to conduct their worship unbothered. Apparently, the judge believes congregants would shy away from services if they feared being rounded up mid-prayer, which sounds like an interesting take on “keeping the faith.”
The judge asserts that the policy implemented by the Biden administration included vital protections that prevented immigration enforcement from turning places of worship into makeshift detention centers. According to Judge Chuang, these safeguards were essential for creating a welcoming environment for worshippers, especially those from immigrant backgrounds. He went so far as to highlight that diminished attendance at religious gatherings, particularly among immigrant worshippers, could spoil the overall experience for the congregation. It’s a classic case of “let us worship in peace” versus “let’s see if we can make worship a little more thrilling.”
Under the previous Biden regime, ICE was encouraged to steer clear of certain sensitive locations such as schools, clinics, and houses of worship. Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas generously expanded this list to include any place where individuals might seek assistance, effectively turning the entire community into a “safe zone.” The overarching philosophy was evident—keep immigrants feeling safe and cozy while they pursue their daily lives, even if it meant allowing pockets of illegal activity to flourish unchecked.
In response, the Trump administration sought to restore order by eliminating Mayorkas’ expansive limitations and trusting ICE to exercise its judgment in the field. This move was likened to how other federal agencies operate, where agents are often given leeway to assess situations as they unfold, instead of being hamstrung by a web of bureaucratic restrictions. According to ICE, this was a common-sense approach to law enforcement, regardless of the judge’s lofty declarations about religious protections. Perhaps a more robust enforcement strategy could improve communities, but that’s just a wild thought.
Judge rules against Homeland Security’s new policy allowing arrests at churcheshttps://t.co/bchX6IfIQ1 pic.twitter.com/ElWJFMuvvC
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 25, 2025
Unexpectedly, the judge chose not to ban the Trump policy outright, instead limiting its suspension to specific plaintiff groups like the Quakers, Sikh Temple Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The ruling requires these entities to communicate their service locations to the Department of Homeland Security so that enforcement agencies can tactically avoid these areas. It is as if the judge believes the enforcement of immigration laws should bend to the whims of these groups, ignoring potential chaos that unchecked illegal immigration could bring to wider society.
In the March of Progress, this particular ruling adds to the ongoing culture war over immigration and religious liberty. It illustrates the clear divisions in legal thinking between those who want to see rigorous enforcement of laws and those who wade into the murky waters of sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, armed only with their belief in benevolence. The gears of the judicial system continue to turn, and one wonders just how many more creative interpretations of policies will arise as the immigration debate rages on.
