Congregations File Lawsuits to Protect Sanctuary Amid Fear of Church Attendance
In light of recent directives from the Trump administration, religious denominations are grappling with the question of whether sanctuary is a constitutionally protected right. This debate has come to a head following a lawsuit filed by five Societies of Friends against the administration’s immigration policies. These religious groups argue that the new guidelines infringe upon their religious liberties, specifically the tradition of offering sanctuary to those in need.
The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to no longer recognize churches as “protected areas” has sparked outrage among religious leaders across the country. For many, providing refuge to vulnerable individuals is not just a moral imperative but a central tenet of their faith. Previous administrations had advised against conducting immigration enforcement at or near sensitive locations like houses of worship and schools, but this latest shift has raised concerns about potential violations of the First Amendment.
Matthew Soerens, the national coordinator for the Evangelical Immigration Table, expressed his worries about the implications of this policy change. He highlighted the potential chilling effect it could have on church attendance, as individuals may fear being targeted by immigration enforcement agents while exercising their religious freedoms. Soerens emphasized that the previous guidelines, in place since at least 2011, were a crucial safeguard for religious institutions.
The lawsuit, brought by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and four other Societies of Friends, argues that enforcing immigration laws in protected areas like houses of worship would impede individuals’ access to essential services and activities. A similar case is being heard in Texas, where the state attorney general is attempting to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic organization that provides shelter to unauthorized migrants. The organization is fighting back, citing violations of its religious freedom.
David Hacker, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, underscored the importance of demonstrating a compelling state interest when burdening religious practices. He referenced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a potential legal recourse for faith-based organizations facing government intervention. Legal scholars have noted that recent case law developments may bolster the arguments of these religious groups in court.
The debate surrounding sanctuary is not a new one. Throughout history, faith communities have provided sanctuary to those in need, often as a response to political turmoil or humanitarian crises. Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona, is widely regarded as a pioneer in the sanctuary movement. During the 1980s, the church sheltered thousands of Central Americans fleeing conflict in their home countries.
Leslie Carlson, a longtime member of Southside, recalled the risks and rewards of offering sanctuary to asylum-seekers decades ago. Today, the church continues its tradition of providing shelter and resources to vulnerable populations. Other congregations, like Columbus Mennonite Church in Ohio, have followed suit, embracing the values of sanctuary as a reflection of their commitment to social justice.
The concept of sanctuary extends beyond mere legal definitions. It embodies a broader ethos of compassion and solidarity with marginalized communities. As Pastor Joel Miller of Columbus Mennonite Church explained, offering sanctuary is a way of recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual, regardless of their legal status. This compassionate approach to immigration issues is rooted in religious teachings that emphasize the importance of welcoming the stranger and caring for those in need.
As the legal battles over sanctuary unfold, church communities across the country are facing a pivotal moment. The enforcement implications of the new policies present a unique challenge that will test the resilience and resolve of these faith-based institutions. While the outcome of these lawsuits remains uncertain, one thing is clear: the fight for sanctuary is far from over.
