D.C. Circuit Revives the Churches' Challenge to ICE's "Sensitive Locations" Rescission — Standing Found, Injunction Question Remanded
NEW (Oct. 20, 2026): A split D.C. Circuit panel has given the 27 religious congregations challenging ICE's rescission of the "sensitive locations" policy their first appellate win — reviving their bid for a preliminary injunction against enforcement at houses of worship.
In Mennonite Church USA v. DHS (No. 25-5209, decided Oct. 20, 2026), a 2-1 panel (Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, joined by Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee; Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissenting) reversed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich's ruling that the coalition of 27 Christian and Jewish groups lacked standing because they failed to show a "credible threat of imminent enforcement" specifically targeting their houses of worship. The majority found the plaintiffs likely face imminent harm traceable to the January 2025 rescission and remanded for Friedrich to reconsider the injunction.
Judge Pan's key passage: "Plaintiffs have direct evidence that the government intends to increase immigration enforcement at sensitive locations — that is the whole point of the Rescission Memo1.2 … The government has done the opposite of 'disavowing any intention of' taking enforcement action at or near plaintiffs' members' houses of worship. Instead, it announced a plan to ramp up enforcement, and that initiative has already begun: Plaintiffs point to several specific examples of the government engaging in enforcement activity at or near their members' houses of worship."
The policy history: the 1993 Sensitive Locations Policy directed immigration officials to avoid enforcement near schools, churches, and funerals; Secretary Mayorkas's 2021 revision required headquarters approval for any sensitive-location action except narrow "exigent circumstances"; on Jan. 20, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman rescinded it, directing agents to "use discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense." The coalition's emblematic incident: the Jan. 31, 2025 arrest of Wilson Velásquez, an asylum seeker with an ankle monitor and a pending court date, during a church service in Georgia — agents said they were "looking for people with ankle bracelets."
Judge Rao's dissent: "Plaintiffs ultimately offer only speculation that restoring policy guidance from a previous administration will change the enforcement practices of this one. Because redressability requires more than conjecture, the District Court correctly denied a preliminary injunction."
What it means: No limits on enforcement are restored yet — the case returns to Friedrich to weigh the preliminary injunction on the merits, with the RFRA and First Amendment claims (worshippers driven to stay home) now live. It is the first appellate ruling in the houses-of-worship line and a data point for the standing battles that have otherwise favored the administration. Watch registered for the remand ruling.
-
An instance of The cruelty is the design, not the malfunction. — The standing win rests on enforcement at houses of worship being the announced design of a written operation, not isolated agent misconduct. ↩︎
-
An instance of The judiciary acts as a systematic barrier against the political weaponization of executive power. — The panel found standing precisely where the government itself announced ramped-up enforcement at houses of worship, reviving the challenge to the sensitive-locations rescission. ↩︎