New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America et al v. Department of Homeland Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
NEW ENGLAND SYNOD, 	)
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH 	)
IN AMERICA, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	) 	Civil Action No.
) 	25-40102-FDS
v. 	)
)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 	)
SECURITY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED MOTION
TO IMPOUND AND FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
This case involves a challenge to a revised federal policy concerning immigration
enforcement in or near churches. Plaintiffs are various Christian church organizations. On
February 13, 2026, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants, the United
States Department of Homeland Security and related government agencies and officials, from
taking certain immigration enforcement actions near plaintiffs’ places of worship. (Dkt. No. 75).
The Court further ordered plaintiffs to provide defendants and file on the docket a list of the
names and addresses of their places of worship and adjacent protected facilities, and descriptions
of adjacent protected areas. (Id. at 5). Plaintiffs have moved to impound that information and
for the entry of a protective order limiting the use of that information by the government. (Dkt.
No. 76).
Case 4:25-cv-40102-FDS Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Court will deny the motion. Plaintiffs are church organizations held open to the
public. No personal information is being disclosed. Rather, the location of their places of
worship is information “freely available to the public.” U.S. Dep’t of Just. v. Reps. Comm. for
Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 764 (1989). This is not the case where, absent a court filing,
private or confidential information could be discovered only through “obscure and discreet
locations on the Internet via a search of public and private databases.” In re Marriott Int’l
Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2022 WL 951692, at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2022); see U.S.
Dep’t of Just., 489 U.S. at 764 (protecting the privacy of rap sheets although they “might be
found after a diligent search of courthouse files, county archives, and local police stations
throughout the country”); U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 500 (1994)
(protecting home addresses although they “often are publicly available through sources such as
telephone directories and voter registration lists”).
In addition, plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is only concerned with government
misuse of the information. They contend that “the administration appears to have retaliated
against other litigants for their protected First Amendment activities.” (Dkt. No. 76, at 5).
Defendants are cautioned that any such retaliatory actions are prohibited and will be treated as
contempt of court.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ consolidated motion to impound and for entry of
protective order is DENIED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: February 26, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-40102-FDS Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 2