The D. C. Circuit published two opinions last week in cases that were argued last term.

Mennonite Church USA v. DHS, No. 25-5209, which was heard in February of this year, involved a challenge to the Trump Administration’s policy of pursuing immigration-enforcement operations at houses of worship.

Prior to 2025, the federal government largely maintained a policy of refraining from conducting such operations at “sensitive locations,” including houses of worship. On January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded that policy and issued a memo announcing that immigration officers may use discretion and common sense to apprehend undocumented immigrants at such locations.

In Mennonite Church USA v. DHS, No. 25-5209, a group of twenty-seven religious organizations challenged the memo and sought a preliminary injunction that would require the government to reinstate the previous policy barring enforcement at houses of worship and requiring a judicial warrant prior to enforcement at houses of worship absent exigent circumstances. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs likely lacked Article III standing.

In an opinion written by Judge Pan and joined by Judge Wilkins, the D.C. Circuit held that the plaintiffs likely had Article III standing and reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The majority reasoned that the plaintiffs’ member organizations faced imminent harm from increased immigration enforcement at their houses of worship, that this harm was fairly traceable to the rescission of the previous policy, and that restoring the prior policy would likely redress at least some of that injury because it generally forbid enforcement at houses of worship absent exigent circumstances or prior approval. The reinstatement of the prior policy then would decrease at least to some extent the imminent threat of enforcement at plaintiffs’ members’ houses of worship. The majority concluded that likewise requiring a judicial warrant before enforcement at a house of worship would likely redress plaintiffs’ injury by adding procedural and substantive hurdles to enforcement.

Judge Rao dissented. In her view the plaintiffs failed to show redressability because it is speculative whether reinstating the prior policy would decrease enforcement at places of worship because the new policy would neither alter DHS’s statutory enforcement authority nor constrain executive enforcement discretion. Judge Rao added that relief imposing a judicial-warrant requirement would be barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which prohibits courts from enjoining immigration enforcement provisions except with respect to an individual alien against whom proceedings have begun. 

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Burgum, No. 24-5231, argued in November 2025, involved a challenge by a federally-recognized Indian tribe to a decision by the Department of the Interior that expanded the pool of applicants eligible to participate in the Tribe’s organizational process.

The California Valley Miwok Tribe brought a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to a 2022 decision by the Department of the Interior that altered a prior policy and had the effect of greatly expanding the number of those eligible to participate in the Tribe’s organization process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government.  

The D. C. Circuit affirmed the district court. Writing for a unanimous panel that included Judges Pillard and Childs, Judge Walker concluded that the Department acted reasonably. The prior policy that determined who was eligible to participate in the Tribe’s organizational process was based on an incorrect understanding of the genealogical record. When that error was brought to light the number of those eligible was substantially reduced. To avoid that consequence, the Department revisited its prior criteria  for eligibility and decided to use a previously-contested source that increased the number of those who could participate. The panel concluded that the Department’s decision was reasonable and consistent with its policy to ensure broad participation in the Tribe’s organization process.