Judge Dabney Friedrich, nominated by Trump to the district court in the District of Columbia, rejected a motion by more than two dozen religious groups and allowed immigration enforcement under the Trump Administration to go forward in churches and other houses of worship. The groups are suing on behalf of millions of Americans to challenge the Trump policy. The April 2025 ruling that rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction was in Mennonite Church USA v Department of Homeland Security.
What has happened in this case?
For decades, the federal government has followed a practice of not conducting immigration enforcement at houses of worship. At the outset of the second Trump Administration, however, the government adopted a new policy that authorized immigration enforcement agents to “indiscriminately” enter houses of worship to conduct such enforcement which, under Trump, includes spying on questioning, searching, and arresting people.
A number of religious groups and others filed lawsuits challenging the policy as violating their freedom of religion. This included a lawsuit in DC filed on behalf of 27 faith communities of the Christian and Jewish faiths, such as the Mennonite Church. Among other things, they detailed how people’s fear of the policy has driven attendance down at their worship services. As the litigation went forward, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Trump policy, which was heard by Judge Friedrich.
How did Judge Freidrich rule on the injunction motion and why was it harmful?
Judge Friedrich denied the preliminary injunction, allowing immigration enforcement to continue as the lawsuit goes forward. She claimed that the religious groups did not have the legal right to obtain an injunction because, she wrote, only a handful of immigration enforcement actions have been conducted at houses of worship, which are “not being singled out as special targets.”
The religious groups remain “gravely concerned” about the harms to religious freedom that they contend the new policy has caused and will continue to cause. In fact, in a similar pending case in Maryland, a judge issued a preliminary injunction forbidding enforcement of the Trump policy. With conflicting district court rulings, the issue is likely to be considered at least at the federal appellate level. In addition, the case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.