YES!!!!! Quakers versus DHS!! Quakers 2 - DHS 0

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law

Score a big one for the Quakers who, along with the Sikhs and the Baptists *sued the Department of Homeland Security* *and* Markwayne Mullin (I love that for him - oh the embarrassment of fighting *Quakers*... and LOSING!!)

Ok, in reality when the Quakers, Sikhs, and Baptists (ohmy!) first got together and filed this lawsuit Markwayne wasn't named, because he wasn't there yet - this lawsuit was first filed early last year. But by the time that the loser DOJ filed their appeal, Markwayne had been added both to DHS, and as a named defendant in the lawsuit.

It all started when the Quakers, et al, filed their complaint on January 27th of last year.

Yes, that's right, a mere *7 days* after Trump took the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back.

You see, while for decades it had been the written policy of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE to *not* carry out immigration enforcement in designated "protected areas", which included outside of churches and other houses of worship (as well as schools and medical facilities), well, there was a new 'king' in town, and he decreed a free-for-all for immigration agents.

So the new king issued a proclamation *rescinding* the decades-old policy, the most recent of which had been issued in 2021, and replacing it with the new 2025 policy, which was essentially "Protected area? We don't need no stinkin' protected areas."

Except... he's not a king.

So the Quakers, Sikhs, and Baptists immediately sued over that new 2025 policy, and got an injunction (included for Notes from the Front members). In fact, that injunction, which *vacated* the 2025 policy and put the 2021 policy back in place, was issued waaaaay back on February 24th, 2025.

That's right, the case went from initial filing to preliminary injunction in just *4* weeks. That's how important District Judge Chuang believed it to be.

On May 6, 2025 (not a typo) DHS and Noem appealed the injunction to the Fourth Circuit, and *just this week* the Fourth Circuit issued its *unanimous* opinion *upholding* the injunction!

While I completely agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion in this case (also included for Notes from the Front members), I do have one tiny nit to pick with the Court of Appeals. In their opinion they say:

"The government is correct that rescinding the 2025 Policy would not completely prevent immigration enforcement actions at or near the plaintiffs’ houses of worship. But, as set forth in the district court’s order, such action would restore the guidelines that previously limited the circumstances under which enforcement activities at sensitive locations could occur. As a matter of logic, at least some of the immigrants, who report that they will not visit houses of worship because of the new directive articulated in the 2025 Policy, will return to the plaintiffs’ houses of worship if DHS reinstates its old policy limiting enforcement actions at those locations."

"As a matter of logic"?? C'mon, the administration threw logic out the window on exactly January 20, 2025, at 12:01.

Notes from the Front members: the original (still in place) order and injunction, along with the Court of Appeals decision, are below for you now. (NOTE: If you have installed the Substack app on any mobile device you need to be sure to go to your notifications settings *in the app*, and reset notifications to “email”, otherwise you will *not* my posts with the documents in your email.)

My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:

- Join Notes from the Front: It's just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that below.

- Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/

- Share this post

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word "logic". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about logic! ;~)

(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney and law professor emeritus - all me, no AI, the buck stops here.)