• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
6 results

MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY...

Docket 1:25-cv-00403, District Of Columbia District Court (Feb. 11, 2025)
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, presiding
Civil Rights - Other
DivisionWashington, DC
FlagsTYPE-L
Cause42:2000 Religion
Case Type440 Civil Rights - Other
Tags440 Civil Rights, Other, 440 Civil Rights, Other
Plaintiff MENNONITE CHURCH USA
Plaintiff AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL ZION CHURCH
Plaintiff CENTRAL ATLANTIC CONFERENCE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 20 REPLY to opposition to motion re 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS

Document MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, 1:25-cv-00403, No. 20 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2025)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
But none of the cases DHS cites limit standing to allegations of harm from direct regulation of a plaintiff’s own conduct.
DHS nonetheless argues that the new enforcement policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ exercise of those beliefs.
None of the cases cited by DHS support the limitation it urges; to the contrary, the Supreme Court has instructed courts to “give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. ...
In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, the district court largely rejected DHS’s § 1252(f) argument but nonetheless excluded from its injunction “one provision that appears to provide the authority for . . . arrests pursuant to an administrative ...
... any tension between § 1252(f) and RFRA must be resolved in favor of RFRA. V. The Scope Of Plaintiffs’ Request Relief Is Proper DHS ends with a hodgepodge of challenges to the scope of Plaintiffs’ requested injunction, none ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ALL PLAINTIFFS

Document MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, 1:25-cv-00403, No. 11 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2025)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from carrying out immigration enforcement activities at their places of worship, absent exigent circumstances or the execution of a judicial warrant, and to stay the effective date of DHS’s 2025 Rescission Memo, for the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum of law.
Dated: February 21, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming.
DC Bar application pending, practice pursuant to Rule 49(c)(8), DC Courts, and supervised by DC Bar member
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-11470854) filed by ...

Document MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, 1:25-cv-00403, No. 1 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2025)
Complaint
Founded in 1935 to address racial inequality, NCCC enables denominations, congregations, and people of faith to impact the State on issues such as economic justice and development, human well-being, equality, and compassion and peace, following the example and mission of Jesus Christ.
Ensuring labor and housing protection for migrant farmworkers is one of NCCC’s top priority areas, and its work includes mobilizing people of faith to participate in grassroots movements and legislative efforts to empower immigrants in North Carolina.
WNCC’s mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, which it accomplishes through creating vital and sustainable local congregations, embracing racial justice and inclusion as discipleship and sanctification, and centering the well-being and health of leadership, both clergy and laity.
In its press release announcing the policy change, a DHS spokesperson explained that “the Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”28 DHS’s website features a news article stating that ICE agents understand the rescission “to free them up to go after more illegal immigrants.”29
The looming threat of an enforcement action on church property also puts congregations in the impossible position of choosing whether to freely carry out their religious mission but risk subjecting their members and those they serve to arrest or deportation, or to change or cut back on the way they worship and minister in an effort to protect their immigrant neighbors.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 16 Memorandum in opposition to re 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,, filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT ...

Document MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, 1:25-cv-00403, No. 16 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2025)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs ignore that Congress has enacted a clear jurisdictional bar to the relief they seek by prohibiting lower courts from issuing injunctions that restrain certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizing arrests.
The court, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a nationwide injunction that altered the status quo by requiring Defendants to obtain a judicial warrant before carrying out enforcement actions in or near plaintiffs’ places of worship, limiting relief to the plaintiffs and their member congregations.
Plaintiffs’ Are Unlikely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their Claims A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing “[N]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006)).
As noted above, several of Plaintiffs’ declarants state that since the Huffman Memorandum was issued, they have experienced a reduction in worship and social service ministry attendance and have taken or are contemplating taking “protective measures to prevent congregants from being placed at risk.” Pls.’ Mem.
As the President has recognized, “[m]illions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.” Id.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 11-1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ALL PLAINTIFFS

Document MENNONITE CHURCH USA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al, 1:25-cv-00403, No. 11-1 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2025)
Specifically, the memo required officers to receive prior written approval by a district director or chief patrol agent before conducting any “[e]nforcement operations which are likely to involve apprehensions on the premises” of a place of worship or the site of a funeral or other religious ceremony, unless exigent circumstances existed.
Agency action is “final” for purposes of APA review if it “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process,” rather than “be[ing] of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,” and if the decision is “one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Rescission Memo simply declares that, “effective immediately,” “[i]t is not necessary ... for the head of the agency to create bright line rules regarding where our immigration laws are permitted to be enforced,” including “in or near areas that [DHS] previously determined require special protection,” such as places of worship and sacred religious observances.
The risk that these services might draw immigration enforcement agents into their houses of worship—and that worshippers might be made vulnerable simply by visiting their churches and synagogues—likely will cause many Plaintiffs to scale back or cease altogether these offerings, which will have ripple effects throughout their communities, including to U.S. citizen family members and minor children.
V. The Court Should Enjoin DHS From Further Burdening Plaintiffs’ Religious Exercise And Stay The Effective Date of the Rescission Memo Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on their claims that DHS’s new enforcement policy violates their rights under RFRA and the First Amendment.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search