North Carolina Churches Challenge Immigration Arrests in Sacred Spaces

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• On February 11, 2025, a coalition of 27 religious groups filed a lawsuit challenging DHS’s new immigration enforcement policy.
• The lawsuit claims the policy violates RFRA and the First Amendment by permitting arrests in churches, schools, and protected spaces.
• Plaintiffs argue the policy undermines religious freedoms and was enacted without proper procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The decision by North Carolina churches and other religious groups to take legal action against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) marks a pivotal effort to contest a recent shift in U.S. immigration enforcement policy. As of February 11, 2025, a coalition of 27 religious organizations, including the North Carolina Council of Churches (NCCC), has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the new policy enabling arrests in churches, schools, and other previously protected spaces undermines religious freedom and procedural guidelines.

The Trump administration’s January 2025 repeal of Biden-era guidelines has sparked extensive debate and tension across various sectors. Previously, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were required to seek superior approval before carrying out enforcement actions at “sensitive locations,” such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. These protections, in place since 2011, sought to offer a measure of sanctuary to individuals vulnerable to immigration enforcement while maintaining public trust in essential community institutions. According to the DHS, the new policy aims to ensure immigrants do not use these locations as “hiding places” to evade lawful arrest. However, religious groups argue that this shift undermines fundamental religious practices and violates both constitutional and statutory protections.

North Carolina Churches Challenge Immigration Arrests in Sacred Spaces

Immediate Impacts on Congregations

Churches in North Carolina, represented heavily in the lawsuit by the NCCC, report that their members are already facing the real-world consequences of this policy change. Reverend Dr. Jennifer Copeland, executive director of NCCC, has shed light on growing fear among community members, particularly undocumented individuals who previously felt secure attending worship services or accessing the religious social services offered by churches. Attendance in congregations has declined, and fewer people are participating in essential programs, including those that provide food, education, and emotional support. These concerns resonate deeply with the church’s mission to care for people in need, a mission that clergy now find increasingly difficult to fulfill.

The lawsuit claims that the DHS’s policy reversals directly conflict with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. Specifically, the coalition argues that allowing immigration agents to make arrests in places of worship forces congregations to either abandon their religious call to welcome all individuals or to endanger the security and well-being of their members. The complaint further alleges that such enforcement actions “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion—a term explicitly addressed and protected under RFRA.

Legal Challenges: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Administrative Procedures

From a legal standpoint, the appeal to RFRA forms a critical backbone of the churches’ argument. Enacted in 1993, RFRA was designed to shield religious organizations and practices from government interference unless there is a compelling state interest pursued through the least restrictive means. Plaintiffs argue that the new DHS policy violates this standard by imposing unnecessary barriers to the exercise of religious duties, such as providing sanctuary and support to vulnerable populations.

The lawsuit also raises procedural objections under the federal Administrative Procedure Act. It alleges that the DHS acted outside of lawful procedure by failing to conduct adequate review or consideration before overturning the longstanding ICE guidelines. Observers believe this issue may play a decisive role in the proceedings, as courts frequently scrutinize whether the rapid repeal of existing regulations adheres to procedural requirements.

This lawsuit emerges amidst heightened enforcement under the Trump administration, which launched a more aggressive immigration strategy beginning in early 2025. Just days before the lawsuit, Pope Francis issued a statement to U.S. bishops urging greater compassion and emphasizing the importance of protecting the human dignity of immigrants, particularly those without legal documentation. Religious leaders across faiths have joined in voicing opposition to policies perceived as disproportionately targeting vulnerable communities.

In North Carolina, the NCCC’s effort reflects broader communal anxieties within the state’s religious organizations, which serve a vital role in immigrant advocacy. The bishops of Charlotte and Raleigh have issued a joint statement calling for fair immigration laws that balance border security with compassion for humanity. This reflects a growing belief within religious institutions that enforcement policies should not erode foundational values of dignity and hospitality.

For Catholic leaders nationally, the push for immigration policy reform has persisted with notable intensity even before the January 2025 enforcement changes. The Catholic bishops of Minnesota have similarly emphasized the urgent need to fix what they call a “broken immigration system.” Many religious leaders continue to argue that reforms should focus on legal pathways and humane treatment, addressing concerns about family separation, labor exploitation, and administrative inefficiencies rather than increasing arrests in sensitive locations.

North Carolina’s Unique Role in the Debate

North Carolina churches, as central players in this legal battle, underscore the unique and compelling role of local faith communities in shaping the larger national discourse. The state’s diverse religious landscape and its close ties to immigrant populations mean that NCCC’s actions carry both regional and national weight. Many believe that the fear instilled by the current policy disproportionately impacts immigrant children and families, further widening the mistrust between communities and authorities.

Locally, church leaders have vocalized the tension between their spiritual commitments and the new enforcement measures. Reverend Dr. Jennifer Copeland asserts that these policies have directly threatened the ability of churches to offer sanctuary and undermine efforts to foster trust—an element that lies at the heart of many pastoral missions.

A Unified Coalition of Faiths

Although the North Carolina Council of Churches is instrumental in this lawsuit, the coalition comprises a wide variety of religious traditions, including Mennonites, Episcopalians, Quakers, and Jewish organizations like the Rabbinical Assembly. This diverse interfaith collaboration reflects the shared concern for constitutional freedoms and collective solidarity against policies that hinder the practice of religion. Such unity lends added moral weight to their legal claims and symbolizes the broad-reaching consequences of DHS enforcement tactics.

The lawsuit names several government entities and officials as defendants, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. By challenging the new policy on both constitutional and procedural grounds, the plaintiffs aim to secure a ruling that safeguards the sanctuary traditions integral to many faith communities.

Potential Outcomes and Broader Repercussions

Legal experts have noted that the case holds the potential to set key precedents about the limits of enforcement policies in relation to religious freedom. If successful, plaintiffs could achieve a reinstatement of the previous “sensitive locations” guidelines and a reaffirmation of constitutional protections for religious practices.

Conversely, the failure to overturn the policy could embolden federal authorities to expand enforcement efforts in other traditionally protected spaces, igniting further tensions between the government and religious communities nationwide. Importantly, the case raises broader questions about where the line should be drawn between national security priorities and local values rooted in compassion and trust.

North Carolina’s churches shine a spotlight on the critical intersection of immigration enforcement and religious liberty. As this lawsuit unfolds, its implications could extend far beyond state lines, fostering key debates about the rights and responsibilities embedded in both religious and civic spheres. For official updates on immigration law and policy, readers can refer directly to the DHS website at https://www.dhs.gov/.

In summarizing the legal fight posed by religious groups in response to the Trump administration’s policy, this case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required to uphold U.S. legal principles while ensuring that immigration enforcement does not infringe on foundational freedoms. For detailed coverage of these and related stories, analysis from VisaVerge.com highlights the critical role of faith organizations in defending immigrant communities under duress.

Learn Today

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) → U.S. law protecting religious practices from government interference unless justified by compelling interest and least restrictive means.
Sensitive Locations → Places like churches, schools, and hospitals, historically protected from immigration enforcement to preserve public trust and safety.
Administrative Procedure Act → Federal law ensuring government agencies follow proper procedures when creating or overturning regulations.
Sanctuary Traditions → Religious practices offering refuge to vulnerable individuals, often tied to broader faith-based humanitarian efforts.
Procedural Objections → Legal arguments challenging actions for not following required steps or protocols, typically under administrative law.

This Article in a Nutshell

North Carolina churches are challenging immigration policy, claiming DHS arrests in sacred spaces violate religious freedom. This lawsuit highlights the clash between enforcement and sanctuary traditions. Faith groups argue these measures harm community trust and constitutional rights. The outcome could redefine boundaries between national security and religious liberty, shaping future policy debates.
— By VisaVerge.com