I am taking the liberty of posting a column that I wrote in Sept. 2014 for the
Al Jazeera Web site that touches on the shifting politics of religious freedom.
Perhaps we can even hope for some kind of detente between right and left
(though I’m not holding my breath). But Jeff Sessions is
Judge Posner wrote a majority opinion in a 2012 case that helpfully narrows
the "harboring" issue a little bit. I include the case in my statutory
interpretation casebook. US v Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). I'm
not sure it would help a church or other religious person/entity, but it
may
On the harboring issue, I wrote a listserv post 10 years ago part of which may
be relevant now. In short, the harboring statute is broad; any shelter you
give to an alien unlawfully present is harboring, even if you don’t intend to
facilitate their unlawful presence. Churches have harbored,
I should add that the obvious basis of a challenge in the third scenario is the
fourth amendment, unless the agents have a warrant in which the RFRA challenge
would be based on an objection to any deportation of a person not guilty of
some crime. Hard to imagine such a challenge succeeding.
Before RFRA, the issue was litigated under Sher Bert in the ninth circuit-
I believe a presbyterian church in Tucson. I will dig up the cite when I get to
the office. As I recall, the church lost.
Marc Stern
General Counsel
AJC
212 891 1480
646 287 2606(cell)
On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:07 AM,
I presume there would have to be actual government action against the
congregation first and then a RFRA defense would be appropriate..like the wash
D.C. case where it worked to maintain a feeding program.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2017, at 7:54 AM,
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
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
