@manders1147.bsky.social
This is something the Nazis used to do to Jewish children in the camps. It happened to a man I knew when he was a child in Auschwitz. The camp guards thought it was funny as hell.
13.02.2026 20:09 — 👍 1260 🔁 686 💬 27 📌 15
NEW: Ahead of the FBI’s raid of an election center in Georgia, the prosecutor overseeing the investigation met with several Trump lawyers, including Ed Martin and Kurt Olsen, who helped the president try to overturn the 2020 election.
13.02.2026 16:52 — 👍 371 🔁 171 💬 16 📌 13
This man is a thief, coward and hypocrite. He argues the U.S. can't afford to protect workers from scammy corporations through the CFPB, but it CAN afford to pay millions and millions robbed from three different agencies to pay for his imperial guard. #stopvought
www.reuters.com/world/us/whi...
And to think “I didn’t inhale” really wasn’t that long ago.
13.02.2026 19:34 — 👍 8 🔁 2 💬 0 📌 0
Image text: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COALITION FOR SPIRITUAL AND ) PUBLIC LEADERSHIP; FR. LARRY ) DOWLING; SR. JEREMEY MIDURA; FR. ) DENNIS BERRY; FR. DAN HARTNETT; and ) MICHAEL N. OKIŃCZYC-CRUZ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 25 C 14168 ) v. ) ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; MARCOS ) CHARLES; RUSSELL HOLT; RODNEY S. ) SCOTT; GREGORY BOVINO; PAMELA ) BONDI; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) DONALD J. TRUMP ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) against defendants, requesting access to minister to migrants and detainees in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility in Broadview, Illinois (“Broadview”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ denial of their access to Broadview violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. For the reasons below, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) in part. A. Standing Because defendants raise the issue, the court briefly addresses standing. Plaintiffs’ theory of standing in relation to its RFRA claim is straightforward. Plaintiffs are asserting their own religious rights and the religious rights of detainees and migrants at Broadview. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights. Instead, defendants argue that “plaintiffs lack standing to assert the rights of the detainees.” Because the preliminary injunction here is based on plaintiffs’ RFRA claims asserted on their own behalf, the court need not reach the third-party standing issues
![Partial Image text:
B. Preliminary injunction
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these
four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and
irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In
establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood
of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing
that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id.
1. Likelihood of success on the merits
The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their
RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise
of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-
1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do
Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”).
The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of
religion.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreick6pkilnwl6ogeuuudgylh5ouxpl7waic4nqmd5kuhoudztt2mb4@jpeg)
Partial Image text: B. Preliminary injunction To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id. 1. Likelihood of success on the merits The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb- 1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”). The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.
![Partial image text:
Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an
important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic
immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is
itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice
substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened
is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of
whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in
question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or
regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the
law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental
tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and
to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering
a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of
plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’
visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice
of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable.
Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise
of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreigzeav3gcog7eung3drosx3lsxl6kzxhx6i7kpwgulfe67oohsvoy@jpeg)
Partial image text: Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’ visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable. Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Partial image text: 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The court agrees with plaintiffs that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor. The govt makes no argument about the balance of equities. As plaintiffs note, Broadview allowed plaintiffs’ religious visitation to Broadview for years before reversing course relatively recently. With reasonable notice and communication, addressing legitimate security and safety concerns, allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees does not pose any undue hardship on the govt. The court also agrees with plaintiffs that the injunction is in public interest. Allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees will improve the condition of those detained at Broadview. Again, the govt makes no argument about public interest. Consequently, the court finds that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. *** Having determined that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction, and taking into consideration the parties’ arguments and representations in today’s hearing, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and orders the following: 1. Defendants are directed to allow plaintiffs to access the Broadview facility on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2026, to offer ashes and Communion for those who desire it. The parties are directed to meet and confer to establish an appropriate protocol for the purposes of safety and security with regard to the Ash Wednesday services. 3. Based on the parties’ representations during today’s proceedings, the court directs them to meet and confer with regard to plaintiffs’ religious ministry at the Broadview facility after Ash Wednesday, including: (1) personal interactions between plaintiffs and detainees; and (2) the ability of plaintiffs to engage in prayer outside of the Broadview facility and in view of the detainees.
New: District Judge Robert Gettleman issued an order yesterday mandating clergy be allowed inside the Broadview, IL ICE facility on Feb. 18 to offer those inside ashes and communion for Ash Wednesday.
Gettleman found the govt has "substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion."
Dheepa Sundaram, PhD (she/her) 1h CBP didn't give her or anyone any water; she asked 3 times accg to other reports. CBP killed a 7yr old. “8 hours after the girl & her father were taken Into custody, she began having selzures & her body temperature was measured at 105.7 degrees by emergency medical technicians. shorturl.at/d20TJ 7-Year-Old Migrant Girl Dies Of Custody ydration And Shock In U.S. Border Patrol The girl's death underscores the crisis precipitated by large groups of families seeking asylum where there are Inadequate facilities to detain them.
sharing this as if it just happened (this story is from eight years ago) really hides the important reminder that DHS was broken way before the current administration.
13.02.2026 02:59 — 👍 473 🔁 112 💬 6 📌 2Holy shit... over a missing blanket.
13.02.2026 10:16 — 👍 15 🔁 4 💬 1 📌 1Online leftists miss the point when they treat trans, women’s, BIPOC, and disabled struggles as secondary to the “workers’ revolution.” Dismantling racial supremacy and patriarchy is the revolution. If you overthrow capitalism without uprooting those foundations, it just comes back with a new names.
13.02.2026 09:23 — 👍 826 🔁 203 💬 18 📌 17Name names. Marty Makary, Vinay Prasad, Jay Bhattacharya, Tracy Beth Hoeg, Martin Kulldorff, Russell Vought, RFK Jr., Donald Trump. All of them contributed to this by their relentless attacks on vaccines and biomedical R&D.
13.02.2026 10:13 — 👍 360 🔁 173 💬 12 📌 4
As heads of state and government gather in Munich, a new report warns that the international order is under growing pressure, alliances are becoming more fragile, and geopolitical tensions are intensifying.
13.02.2026 10:38 — 👍 8 🔁 6 💬 1 📌 0
Some children in Dilley were so distraught they cut themselves or talked about suicide, parents told ProPublica.
They said kids lost their appetites after finding worms and mold on their food, had trouble sleeping, and were constantly sick.
“Government Loses Hard Drives It Was Supposed to Put ICE Detention Center Footage On” via @404media.co:
You just can’t make it up…
www.404media.co/government-l...
A federal judge in Orlando ordered two more Venezuelan migrants released from ICE custody on Thursday and said he suspected foul play by the agents involved in their detentions.
13.02.2026 01:10 — 👍 2024 🔁 755 💬 39 📌 18
Typical.
When caught/questioned about their nefarious activities, the current regime follows a standard protocol.
First, DENIAL.
Then, OUTRAGE.
And if that doesn't work, LIES.
archive.is/2026.02.11-1...
Just like with Brazil arresting their insurrectionists rather than re-electing them, other countries are holding their Epstein-tied politicians accountable far better than we do. www.bbc.com/news/article...
12.02.2026 17:44 — 👍 12926 🔁 4183 💬 315 📌 237
A year after U.S. Vice President JD Vance attacked European allies at the Munich Security Conference, Washington's partners will be seeking to chart a more independent course, while preserving the basis of the alliance.
13.02.2026 11:51 — 👍 5 🔁 5 💬 0 📌 0
This video on the rise of Russ Vought is based on scores of interviews, thousands of pages of emails and dozens of hours of videos and recordings of private briefings given by Vought, most of which have not been previously reported.
12.02.2026 20:09 — 👍 968 🔁 546 💬 44 📌 38Admin Officials in the Epstein Files:
Donald J. Trump
Melania Trump
Howard Lutnick (Commerce)
John Phelan (Navy)
Paolo Zampolli (Kennedy Center)
RFK Jr. (HHS)
Kevin Warsh (Fed Nom)
Mehmet Oz (CMS)
Elon Musk (Fmr DOGE)
Steve Bannon (Fmr WH)
Alex Acosta (Fmr Labor)
Bill Barr (Fmr AG)
Once again, we must stop re-litigating every policy debate in 🇺🇸 politics on the turf of the far right authoritarian party & using the jargon of their talking points.
12.02.2026 20:42 — 👍 104 🔁 30 💬 4 📌 2BREAKING: 47 Senators just blocked a measure that would have provided billions more dollars of no-strings-attached funding for ICE and Border Patrol to continue their violence and abuse.
While we applaud these Senators for taking action, the fight continues.
yep, they're still at it in LA and Portland too
the media is gonna be like "time for a new narrative" and it's so important to keep talking about how none of the cities they invaded have become more safe since the spotlight shifted away from them
All of my group chats are responding to Homan’s announcement by asking everyone to double down because:
1. ICE is still out there and abducting people today. We can’t trust the occupation is over until we actually see it.
2. People are going to be in an economic crisis for a very long time.
My app has it shown as “subscribers only” even at after 7:30a on the 12th.
It’s a real bummer bc it’s part of my morning routine.
This is a really good [millennial-coded] explainer for non-Californians of who Gavin Newsom is to most of us. #California.
Our governor is like “if Regina George and Patrick Bateman from American Psycho had a baby.” And he DESPISES Republicans. 🤷🏽♂️
So that would lead to a confrontation between he and Miller would it not? I’m sure they’re basically on the same page, but who as each of their strings b/c I don’t believe for one moment they don’t have backers.
12.02.2026 06:36 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0People who speak like this under oath to our elected Representatives in the People’s House should face actual legal & professional consequences
12.02.2026 06:04 — 👍 987 🔁 308 💬 50 📌 14If the government can take away your voting rights for a felony conviction, and they also decide what constitutes a felony, and they also decide who’s charged with the felony, and they also decide who’s prosecuted for the felony, you don’t have a right to vote.
12.02.2026 03:10 — 👍 1934 🔁 620 💬 14 📌 7
I heard about a killing of a Black man in DC by US marshals on a call from someone in the neighborhood then saw it confirmed by the organization @harrietsdreams.bsky.social & here. A Black man in DC was killed by the state today. Make the same noise for him as for anyone else when we have his name.
12.02.2026 02:28 — 👍 1411 🔁 968 💬 14 📌 22
