Filed Date: April 28, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The "2025 Huffman Memo," issued on January 20, 2025, by Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, rescinded the previous administration's policy that designated certain locations as "protected areas" for immigration enforcement. The prior policy, issued in 2021, had directed immigration officials to avoid enforcement actions at places like schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. The new memo instead eliminated these "bright line rules," instructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to use their "common sense" and "enforcement discretion" when operating in these locations. A DHS spokesperson stated that the change was intended to empower law enforcement to apprehend "criminal aliens" who might be "hiding" in such places. This action was part of a broader set of directives aimed at expanding immigration enforcement and ending the use of humanitarian parole programs. This case challenges this memo.
On April 28, 2025, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noreste (PCUN) and several faith and community organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its Acting Director, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Acting Commissioner. The plaintiffs claimed violations of the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Ann L. Aiken presides over the case.
The plaintiffs argued that the memo was arbitrary and capricious, violated free exercise rights, imposed substantial burdens on religious practice, and failed to comply with required administrative procedures. They alleged that the defendants disregarded decades of reliance on the sensitive-locations policy, failed to consider the chilling effect its rescission would have on immigrant communities and religious congregants, and ignored serious safety, health, and constitutional concerns raised by faith-based and service organizations. The complaint further contended that by deterring people from attending worship, volunteering, or accessing essential services at previously protected locations, the policy burdened religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also claimed that DHS did not demonstrate that the change was the least restrictive means of achieving any compelling government interest, as required under RFRA.
Represented by Innovation Law Lab and the Justice Action Center, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to restore longstanding protections that prevented ICE and CBP from conducting enforcement actions at schools, hospitals, and houses of worship.
On July 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. They asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the memo neither regulated nor compelled any action by them, and any alleged harm was attributable to broader enforcement priorities rather than the guidance itself. On the merits, the defendants contended that the RFRA claim failed because the memo did not impose a “substantial burden” on the plaintiffs’ religious exercise; the guidance neither compelled nor prohibited religious activity, and the alleged injury, such as a decline in worship attendance, was too “attenuated and speculative” to constitute a substantial burden under RFRA. They argued that the First Amendment claim failed because the guidance did not place a “significant burden” on the right to associate. Regarding the Administrative Procedure Act claim, the defendants maintained the court lacked jurisdiction because the 2025 guidance is an internal policy matter “committed to agency discretion” and is not a “final agency action” subject to judicial review. The motion also noted three other related lawsuits challenging the same 2025 guidance with varying outcomes—Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00872 (D.D.C.); Make the Road New York v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00918 (S.D.N.Y.); and Service Employees International Union v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00947 (N.D. Cal.).
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Scott Shuchart (5/7/2025)
Victoria Tan (8/9/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69952662/parties/pineros-y-campesinos-unidos-del-noreste-v-noem/
Aiken, Ann L. (Oregon)
Flores-Perilla, Laura (Oregon)
Galli-Graves, Brandon (Oregon)
Conti, Patrick J. (Oregon)
Canaan, Gabriel (Oregon)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69952662/pineros-y-campesinos-unidos-del-noreste-v-noem/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 6:13 p.m.
State / Territory: Oregon
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 28, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Churches, church groups, and nonprofits
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Immigration/Border: