I am in contact with a coalition of congregations in Cambridge, Mass., that is
planning to offer sanctuary in line with the third scenario. I am unaware of
any examples yet, but I will be sure to drop a note here in case it does arise.
Jeremy Mallory
>
> On Mar 28, 2017 at 5:31 AM, <Marty Lederman
> (mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu)> wrote:
>
>
>
> Alan: The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know,
> the law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter --
> to assist DHS with its removal proceedings. There are no "obligations to
> disclose" information about immigration status, in particular. (All that 8
> USC 1373(a) does is to prohibit cities from prohibiting their own employees
> from providing such info to the feds if they so choose.)
>
>
> I'm also not aware of any cases involving your third scenario, in which (as I
> understand it) a church harbors a removable alien and refuses to allow
> immigration officials to enter the facilities to arrest the individual.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Alan E Brownstein
> <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu (mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu)> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the
> > possibility of RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's
> > deportation policies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be
> > permitted to assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to
> > seek and disclose the immigration status of students?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees
> > from any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of
> > persons within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it
> > would violate their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that
> > such an order complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of
> > deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so?
> > The church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying
> > sanctuary in these circumstances.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial
> > burden on religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to
> > justify its actions under strict scrutiny.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alan Brownstein
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> > (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to
> Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are p
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
