7th Circuit: Visa Regulations for Temporary Religious Workers Do Not Violate RFRA or 1st Amendment

In Society of the Divine Word v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (7th Cir., Feb. 24, 2025), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that USCIS regulations that makes the process for obtaining a immigrant worker status and subsequent permanent residence more difficult for temporary religious workers than other categories of temporary workers does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the 1st Amendment.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs do not identify a belief or set of beliefs they have to violate because of the regulation. Instead, they offer a broader, structural argument—that the regulation places a substantial burden on their religious exercise because it allows for “undue Government interference” with their ability to “select and employ their own ministers.” Taking this claim on its own terms, it does not rise to the level of a substantial burden for purposes of stating a RFRA violation. There is no assertion that the regulation prevents Plaintiffs from practicing their religion. It does not require them to select or refrain from selecting any particular minister. And it does not otherwise pressure or coerce Plaintiffs into violating any tenet of their religion, as far as we can tell from the complaint and declarations. We agree with the district court that, at most, the regulation “requires employers to plan the timing of employment decisions based on immigration status, and potentially limits the pool of qualified applicants that plaintiffs can choose from if they fail to plan accordingly.” ... That is not a substantial burden on religious beliefs or practice....

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Enforcement Against Plaintiffs of New Guidelines for Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, Feb. 24, 2025), a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration authorities from enforcing against the Society of Friends, Baptist, and Sikh plaintiffs the January 2025 policy change on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as places of worship. Instead, they must comply with the previous 2021 Guidelines. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their 1st Amendment Freedom of Association claim as well as their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It concluded that enforcement of the new policy would likely significantly burden both plaintiffs' right to expressive association and their religious exercise. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs have provided facts showing that, in light of their religious beliefs and practices relating to immigrants, they can reasonably expect to face immigration enforcement actions at their places of worship pursuant to the 2025 Policy, that such actions will likely result in declines in attendance at their worship and ministry services, and that such declines are, in fact, already occurring.... They have further demonstrated that, as a result ..., certain core religious beliefs and practices will be significantly burdened, including the beliefs that each of the Plaintiffs' religions require regular, communal worship; that at least CBF requires, as part of its religious exercise, that its congregations engage in services to support immigrants and refugees; and that, for the Quaker Plaintiffs in particular, the presence of any firearms in worship services, such as those of armed law enforcement officers, violates their faith.

CBS News reports on the decision.

27 Religious Denominational Groups Sue DHS Over Rescission of Sensitive Locations Policy

Yesterday, 27 Christian and Jewish denominational bodies and organizations filed suit in a D.C. federal district court challenging the rescission by the Department of Homeland Security of its "Sensitive Locations Policy." The policy severely limited the situations under which immigration enforcement actions could take place at churches, synagogues, mosques and other institutions of worship, as well as at various other locations. The complaint (full text) in Friends General Conference v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D DC, filed 2/11/2025), says in part:

1. [Plaintiffs] bring this suit unified on a fundamental belief: Every human being, regardless of birthplace, is a child of God worthy of dignity, care, and love. Welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is thus a central precept of their faith practices....

7. ... Consistent with their call to welcome and serve all people, many have undocumented congregants and many offer social service ministries— such as food and clothing pantries, English as a Second Language (“ESL”) classes, legal assistance, and job training services—at their churches and synagogues that serve undocumented people.  An immigration enforcement action during worship services, ministry work, or other congregational activities would be devastating to their religious practice. It would shatter the consecrated space of sanctuary, thwart communal worship, and undermine the social service outreach that is central to religious expression and spiritual practice for Plaintiffs’ congregations and members.

8. The rescission of the sensitive locations policy is already substantially burdening the religious exercise of Plaintiffs’ congregations and members.  Congregations are experiencing decreases in worship attendance and social services participation due to fear of immigration enforcement action.  For the vulnerable congregants who continue to attend worship services, congregations must choose between either exposing them to arrest or undertaking security measures that are in direct tension with their religious duties of welcome and hospitality. Likewise, the choice that congregations currently face between discontinuing social service ministries or putting undocumented participants at risk of arrest is no choice at all: Either way, congregations are forced to violate their religious duty to serve and protect their immigrant neighbors.

The suit alleges that the rescission of the policy violates plaintiffs' free exercise rights under RFRA as well as their 1st Amendment rights to expressive association.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

Quaker Organizations Sue Over New Immigration Enforcement Policy

Yesterday three organizations of Quaker congregations along with two individual congregations filed suit in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Department of Homeland Security's recent change in policy that allows immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations in houses of worship and at religious life-cycle ceremonies.  The complaint (full text) in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, filed 1/27/2025), alleges that the policy change violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1st Amendment's protection of expressive association and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint alleges in part:

89. A diversity of worshippers is an essential component of the Quaker value of “experience[ing] God in a broader, more encompassing way,” as “one’s life experience affects how one hears the spirit and what conclusions one might draw.”... Deterring immigrants from worshipping in-person with a Quaker meeting would therefore directly interfere with Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by lessening their “ability to hear God and what God is trying to tell [them].” ...

90. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Quaker beliefs make it essential that they “encourage others for whom [that] path is meaningful to join.”... But DHS’s new policy, by opening meeting houses to immigration-enforcement activities, inhibits Plaintiffs from doing just that.... Knowingly putting a person in harm’s way or subjecting them to the possibility of a violent encounter with an armed law-enforcement officer would violate Quaker beliefs in peace and nonviolence....

91. Quakers have held a religious commitment against violence for hundreds of years.... For many Quakers, “[t]he presence of a weapon in a Quaker meeting would be absolutely unacceptable.”... The presence of armed immigration officers at meeting houses—which the new policy allows—would thus significantly hamper Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their faith.... Importantly, even the threat of armed government agents at meeting houses—which has existed since the moment DHS announced its new policy—does the same.

Axios reports on the lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Arguments on State Closure of Catholic Agency Serving Migrants

On January 13, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc. (Links to documents and briefs in the case.) At issue is an attempt by the Texas Attorney General to shut down Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso. The Attorney General claims that the agency is sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. A Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. Also at issue is the state's subpoena for records of Annunciation House. (See prior posting.) Annunciation House contends that the attempt to close it down violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Reform Austin reports on the oral arguments.

Catholic Diocese Sues Feds Over Rule Change For Religious Worker Visas

Suit was filed last month in a New Jersey federal district court by the Catholic diocese of Patterson, New Jersey and by several Catholic priests who are citizens of foreign countries and are in the United States on R-1 Temporary Religious Worker visas.  The lawsuit challenges a State Department rule change adopted in March 2023 which makes it more difficult for religious workers on R-1 visas to obtain EB-4 special immigrant religious worker permanent resident status ("green card"). The complaint (full text) in Roman Catholic Diocese of Patterson, New Jersey v. U.S. Department of State, (D NJ, filed 8/8/2024) alleges in part:

This civil action asserts that in March of 2023, Defendant-DOS acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it imposed an unfounded and unsupported interpretation of the Act as it relates to visa availability for individuals and subject to the EB-4 preference category and employers who must rely upon the EB-4 preference category for their workers.  The recent and sudden agency action governing the calculation of visa availability and allocation by Defendant DOS was conducted without proper notice, failed to provide for a proper period of comment, exceeded the authority of Defendant-DOS, and directly threatens Individual-Plaintiffs’ ongoing ability to carry out their religious and spiritual vocation.  In doing so, Defendant-DOS acted in a manner certain to disrupt countless religious workers, forcing Individual-Plaintiffs to either violate the terms of their nonimmigrant visa or face imminent and abrupt departure the United States without any knowledge as to when, or even if, Individual-Plaintiffs will return to the United States.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Americal Magazine reports on the lawsuit.  North Jersey.com reports that the State Department's reaction to the lawsuit has been a statement that says in part:

[O]nly Congress has the ability to address the imbalance between the limited supply of EB-4 visas and the increasing demand. We recognize the importance of religious ministers and workers as well as their U.S. employers who lead faith-based institutions, and we share your concern about the long wait times for EB-4 visas.

Court Rejects Texas AG's Challenge To Catholic Agency Assisting Migrants

 As previously reported, a legal battle has been underway between Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. This week the Attorney General failed in his efforts to close down Annunciation House.  In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (I), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), a Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. The court said in part:

The State’s proposed counterclaim in the nature of quo warranto violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by substantially burdening Annunciation House’s free exercise of religion and failing to use the “least restrictive means” of securing compliance with the law.

In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (II), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), the court dismissed the Attorney General's suit against Annunciation House, saying in part:

The record before this Court makes clear that the Texas Attorney General’s use of the request to examine documents from Annunciation House was a pretext to justify its harassment of Annunciation House employees and the persons seeking refuge.

El Paso Times reports on the case.

Texas AG Seeks to Liquidate Catholic Agency Providing Services to Migrants

 A legal battle is underway between Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. On Feb. 7, Paxton demanded that Annunciation House turn over various records within one day. The next day, Annunciation House filed suit in a Texas state trial court seeking a declaratory judgment and temporary restraining order. The complaint (full text- Scroll to Exhibit 6) in Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/8/2024), in part asks the court to determine:

whether Defendants’ unexplained demand for sensitive information infringes on AHI’s constitutional rights, including religious liberty, association, and equal protection, and the privacy rights of third parties, including their sensitive medical, legal, and personal information.

The same day, the court issued a TRO (full text, scroll to Exhibit 7) temporarily barring the Attorney General's office from enforcing its Request to Examine Annunciation House's records. On Feb. 20, the Attorney General filed a counter claim (full text), seeking, as a sanction for failing to produce the requested documents, to bar Annunciation House from transacting business in Texas and asking for appointment of a receiver to wind up Annunciation House's affairs. In a press release announcing the filling, the Attorney General's office said in part:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Annunciation House, a nongovernmental organization (“NGO”), to revoke their registration to operate in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) reviewed significant public record information strongly suggesting Annunciation House is engaged in legal violations such as facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house....

The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling....

In a Feb. 21 press release, Annunciation House responded, saying in part:

The AG has now made explicit that its real goal is not records but to shut down the organization. It has stated that it considers it a crime for a Catholic organization to provide shelter to refugees.

The Attorney General’s illegal, immoral and anti-faith position to shut down Annunciation House is unfounded. Annunciation House has provided hospitality to hundreds of thousands of refugees for over forty-six years. It is a work recognized by the Catholic Church and is listed in the National Catholic Directory. Annunciation House has done this work of accompaniment out of the scriptural and Gospel mandate to welcome the stranger. Annunciation House’s response to the stranger is no different from that of the schools who enroll children of refugees, the clinics and hospitals who care for the needs of refugees, and the churches, synagogues, and mosques who welcome families to join in worship.

Texas Tribune reports on the litigation.

Court Upholds Procedure for Obtaining Immigrant Religious Worker Classification

In Society of the Divine Word v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, (ND IL, July 20, 2023), an Illinois federal district court rejected RFRA, free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection challenges brought by more than a dozen religious institutions to the way in which federal law treats foreign-born ministers and international religious workers who the institutions seek to employ.  Current federal law does not allow them to file their application for a "green card" until after their employer has obtained a special immigrant religious worker classification for them. This is different than the rules for employees of secular organizations who may file for a green card concurrently with their employer's filing. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs counter that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) violates the RFRA because their decisions regarding “when and where religious workers may be put into religious service” are protected by the First Amendment. They argue that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) places “extreme and sometimes insurmountable burdens” on their ability to staff their religious missions. These burdens include processing delays, resource expenditure to follow up on and seek expedited adjudication of petitions, and lapses in employment authorization....

The court agrees with plaintiffs that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) is still capable of substantially burdening their religious exercise even if they can use other employment-based immigration categories to hire their foreign-born religious workers. That being said, the court disagrees with plaintiffs that they have demonstrated that these alleged burdens (time, planning, and cost) have a substantial impact on their ability to determine when and where to hire and fire the religious ministers of their choice. Instead, § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) requires employers to plan the timing of employment decisions based on immigration status, and potentially limits the pool of qualified applicants that plaintiffs can choose from if they fail to plan accordingly. Limiting the pool of available employees based on immigration status is not the same as interfering with a religious organization’s hiring decision by pressuring them to hire or fire a particular employee, as in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012)...

Plaintiffs’ next argument is that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses because it discriminates against them on the basis of religion....

... [T]his court concludes that § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) is not based on religion; it is based on the demonstrated risk of fraud in the special immigrant religious worker program, which is not subject to other requirements that might avoid fraud in other employment-based categories. 

Immigration Officials Violated Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

In Dousa v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (SD CA, March 21, 2023), a California federal district court held that U.S. immigration officials violated the free exercise rights of Kaji Dousa, a pastor at New York City's Park Avenue Christian Church. Dousa worked extensively with immigrants in Mexico and at the southern border.  The court concluded that her rights were violated when in December 2018 a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official e-mailed the Mexican government urging it to deny the pastor entry into Mexico and to send her back to the United States. Dousa performed religious marriage ceremonies for immigrant couples with children entering the United States who were in common-law marriages. This made it more likely that they would not be subject to family separation in the U.S. The court said in part:

While the United States undoubtedly has a compelling state interest in protecting the border, Oliveri’s admission that the email was “[l]iterally, creative writing . . . [w]ithout any basis” indicates that there exists no substantial state interest in requesting that Mexican authorities deny entry to Dousa. And, as evidenced by the United States’ other investigative efforts, there exist more “narrowly tailored” approaches to achieve border security. Dousa therefore has established that the CBP violated her Free Exercise rights by restricting her ability to minister to migrants in Mexico.

The court however rejected Dousa's claim that the investigation of her activities violated her free exercise rights. The court ordered:

... Defendants SHALL COMMUNICATE in writing to appropriate Mexican immigration authorities that their request in Oliveri’s December 10, 2018 email is fully and immediately rescinded and revoked as to Dousa.

[Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.] 

9th Circuit: BIA Should Consider Evangelical Christians Separately From All Christians In Assessing Deportation Risk

In Nababan v. Garland, (9th Cir., Nov. 23, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) a petition by two Indonesians who are members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church who are seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.  In order for the BIA to reopen petitioners' case, they would need to show changed conditions in Indonesia since the earlier denial of their petitions. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court held that the BIA had committed legal error in finding no material change of conditions. The majority said in part:

[The BIA] failed, ... to account for Petitioners’ status as evangelical Christians or the evidence they presented indicating that evangelical Christians have experienced a particular increase in violence and persecution, beyond that experienced by Indonesian Christians in general.

Judge VanDyke dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s emphasis on the term “evangelical Christian” is not just absurdly fussy, it’s also inherently fuzzy. The majority latches onto the term, but never defines what it means. Does the majority mean that “evangelical Christians” are a subgroup of Christianity, akin to the commonly used distinction between, say, Catholics and Protestants? Or does the majority simply mean that “evangelical Christians” refers to any “Christians” who evangelize? If the latter, this broad categorization encompasses the vast majority, if not all, Christians....

DC Circuit: USCIS Denial Of Religious Worker Visa Violated RFRA

In National Capital Presbytery v. Mayorkas, (D DC, Oct. 19, 2021), the D.C. federal district court held that USCIS violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it refused to renew the R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker visa for one of National Capital Presbytery's (NCP) ministers who is a citizen of Myanmar. The church applying for a R-1 visa must show how it intends to compensate the religious worker. Here the agency's Administrative  Appeals Office concluded that NCP had not adequately shown this. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs note that Defendants promulgated the compensation regulation to improve its “ability to detect and deter fraud and other abuses in the religious worker program.”... No compelling interest exists here. Defendants do not argue that NCP does not exist, or that there is any fraud afoot here. Given the interest the compensation regulation serves, and that Defendants do not allege fraud, they cannot show a compelling interest in denying NCP’s petition for the reasons asserted....

Rules On Religious Workers' Visas Upheld

In Salesian Society, Province of St. Philip the Apostle, Inc. v. Mayorkas, (D DC, Sept. 22, 2021), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a challenge to the requirements to qualify for religious workers' special immigrant visas. At issue is the requirement that the immigrant will be working in a compensated position in the U.S., and that they worked in a compensated position (or provided their own support) for the two years prior to filing for a visa.  Roman Catholic Salesian Brothers take a vow of poverty. Rejecting plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs object to USCIS’s categorization of the support paid on their behalf for living and other expenses as “non-salaried compensation,” asserting that requiring them to provide corroborating evidence that such support is paid on their behalf would cause them to “lie” because, due to their vow of poverty, “[t]he Salesians do not compensate their ministers.” ... But Plaintiffs have not explained how USCIS’s categorization of the support provided to them as “non-salaried compensation” has “put substantial pressure on [them] to modify [their] behavior and to violate [their] beliefs.”

The court also rejected Establishment Clause and RFRA challenges.

Texas Governor's Order Invalid; Catholic Charities Can Continue Work With Migrants

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Aug. 26, 2021), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause grounds Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Executive Order which prohibits, during the COVID pandemic, anyone except federal, state or local law enforcement officials from providing transportation to migrants who have been detained for crossing the border illegally or are subject to expulsion. The Order directs the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to stop any vehicle suspected to be in violation of this Order and send it back to its point of origin if a violation is confirmed. The court concluded that enforcement of the Order would require state officials to decide whether a person has been detained for crossing the border illegally. It went on:

Because the Order authorizes DPS agents to make and act on immigration determinations, the province of federal law, it is facially invalid.

According to The Tablet, this decision allows Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley and other organizations to continue their work with migrants.

Court Rejects Claims of Discrimination Against Yemeni Family Members Of US Citizens

In Almakalani v. McAleenan, (ED NY, March 16, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a number of challenges to alleged unreasonable delays by the federal government in adjudicating whether 86 family members of petitioners could lawfully immigrate from Yemen as family members of U.S. citizens. Special procedures were promulgated in 2012 for Yemeni family members because of the unreliability of documentation from Yemen. Plaintiffs alleged that the special procedures "are the result of a conspiracy between the Defendants—all members of former President Donald J. Trump’s administration, including former President Trump himself—to halt Yemeni Muslim immigration to the United States."  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ only specific factual allegations of animus or intentional discrimination evoke Islamophobic rhetoric in statements and actions attributable to former President Trump and his administration.... Those statements and actions do not specifically relate to the Yemen Guidance or the adjudication of Form I-130 petitions. Moreover, USCIS issued and implemented the Yemen Guidance in 2012, during the administration of former President Barack Obama and prior to any of the statements and actions that allegedly support Plaintiffs’ claims of discriminatory animus....

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by subjecting Form I-130 petitions brought by and on behalf of Muslim individuals to higher burdens of proof than those petitions brought by or on behalf of non-Muslims....

To the extent that Form I-130 petitions on behalf of Yemeni beneficiaries are adjudicated differently than petitions on behalf of beneficiaries from other countries, Defendants have articulated a logical justification grounded in the unreliability of Yemen’s official processes for maintaining and issuing civil records. That justification is unrelated to matters of religious faith or affiliation, and it provides a rational explanation for the challenged policies and practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Sanctuary Leaders Sue Over Targeting and Excessive Fines

Suit was filed last month in D.C. federal district court by advocacy groups and individuals who are leaders in the sanctuary movement claiming that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have targeted the individual defendants with exorbitant fines because they have taken sanctuary in houses of worship. The complaint (full text) in Austin Sanctuary Network v. Gaynor, (D DC, filed 1/19/2021), alleges that these actions violate the 1st and 8th Amendments as well as RFRA. The complaint alleges in part:

The sanctuary movement reignited in the 2000s through a network of over 800 Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Baha’i, and Buddhist houses of worship that opened their doors to immigrants at risk of deportation, amidst a steady rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and the criminalization, detention, and deportation of immigrants....

Individual Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are deeply intertwined with the sanctuary movement. For them, taking sanctuary and participating in the sanctuary movement are religious acts....

Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Biden Ends Trump Administration's "Muslim-Bans"

President Joe Biden yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) revoking the Trump administration's controversial travel bans that mainly impacted Muslim countries. The Proclamation reads in part:

The United States was built on a foundation of religious freedom and tolerance, a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution.  Nevertheless, the previous administration enacted a number of Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations that prevented certain individuals from entering the United States — first from primarily Muslim countries, and later, from largely African countries.  Those actions are a stain on our national conscience and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all....

Make no mistake, where there are threats to our Nation, we will address them.  Where there are opportunities to strengthen information-sharing with partners, we will pursue them.  And when visa applicants request entry to the United States, we will apply a rigorous, individualized vetting system.  But we will not turn our backs on our values with discriminatory bans on entry into the United States.

Church's Appeal of Visa For Its Music Director Fails

In Liberty Church of the Assemblies of God v. Pompeo, (D MA, July 1, 2020), a Massachusetts federal district court invoked the doctrine of consular non-reviewability to dismiss a church's appeal of the denial of an R-1 visa to its Director of Music and Media.

[T]he complaint fails to plausibly plead a violation of Liberty Church’s constitutional rights. Although Liberty Church broadly alleges that the act of denying Mr. Rocha a visa infringed its rights under the Establishment Clause by making it “suddenly and unduly unable to establish church services” ..., it has not explained how it has been unable to establish church services in the wake of the denial. There is no indication, for example, that Liberty Church cannot operate without Mr. Rocha.... Indeed, the allegations in the complaint suggest the exact opposite.... To the extent Liberty Church instead means to contend that it needs someone (if not Mr. Rocha himself) to serve as Director of Music and Media, nothing in the complaint would allow the Court to reasonably infer that the denial of Mr. Rocha’s visa application rendered Liberty Church unable to employ a Director of Music and Media.

Supreme Court Rejects Asylum Seeker's Challenge To Limits On Review Of Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, (US Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020) upheld against constitutional attack a provision in the immigration law that prevents applicants for asylum from appealing to federal courts through a habeas corpus petition an immigration judge's conclusion that the applicant lacks a "credible fear of persecution".  The court rejected arguments that the limitation violates the Constitutional ban on suspending habeas corpus and violates due process. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg concurrd, but would limit the holding to the facts of this case. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. NPR reports on the decision.

4th Circuit Dismisses "Muslim Ban" Lawsuits

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (4th Cir., June 8, 2020), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed three separate actions challenging President Trump's restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals from specified countries.  Among other things, plaintiffs contended that the Executive Order was "inexplicable by anything but animus toward Muslims." The Court of Appeals, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Hawaii, concluded:

At bottom, in view of the Supreme Court’s conclusions with respect to Proclamation 9645 in Hawaii, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims in this case lack the plausibility necessary to survive the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

AP reports on the decision.