Brian Straw

In my ongoing series, #TalesOfABoringSuburbanDad, took the family to Arizona for a weekend of baseball and hiking.

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.

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."

Judge Gettleman in the N.D. Illinois has ruled that ICE will be required to provide access to religious leaders at the Broadview ICE Detention facility for Ash Wednesday and other pastoral care.

"Gettleman said denying religious leaders access violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

Seeing some nice posts and Jason Crow f-bombs but the truth is this administration is currently prosecuting Democratic elected officials, candidates and staff in Chicago and it’s going to trial. They believe targeting lower profile officials will let them get away with neutering the 1st amendment.

If you're not from Chicago, you might not be aware that ICE attempted to murder a person doing ICE monitoring, long before the murders in Minneapolis. She survived being shot 5 times. She's taking them to court.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin...

US Olympic Curling Team member speaks out against ICE:

"I'm proud to represent Team USA. But we'd be remiss if we didn't mention what's going on in Minnesota and what a tough time it's been. What's happening is wrong. There's no shades of gray."

One of every thousand American residents has been taken into custody by ICE in the last year.

Again it’s important to remember the context of these chats is that a woman was shot five times in her car as she was attempting to donate clothes at a church.

Here's another screen shot of a text where a fellow agent on the "Posse Chat" asks Charles Exum if the bosses have been supportive.
"Everyone has been including Chief Bovino, Chief Banks, Sec Noem and El Jefe himself...according to Bovino

in a text string after the shooting, a fellow agent told Exum he's a "legend"
"Beers on me"

///BREAKING/// Body cams, texts, emails and other evidence have been released in the Oct. 4 shooting of Marimar Martinez by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum, including this email to Exum by Cmdr. Greg Bovino on the day of the shooting
Background:
www.chicagotribune.com/2026/02/06/p...

Marimar Martinez, the Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol agent, expected to file lawsuit, release evidence Body-cam video, text messages and other evidence tied to shooting during Operation Midway Blitz is set for a Wednesday release.

JUST IN: Marimar Martinez, the Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol agent, expected to file lawsuit and release evidence Wednesday

From @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/...

This is why domestic "shuffle" flights between ICE detention centers have skyrocketed, much moreso than ICE deportation flights.

When you are moved to a different jurisdiction, you have to refile your habeas petition all over again. They want to wear people down so they'll give up on their cases.

The largest federal prison in the nation is Fort Dix, which has a rated capacity of 4,600 people. The largest of these warehouse camps may hold more than twice that number of people.

The federal government hasn't operated a prison camp inside the United States that large since Japanese Internment.

ICE to begin detaining immigrants inside Social Circle warehouse in April Homeland Security plans to build warehouse detention facilities in other cities being met with opposition.

ICE has now spent over half a BILLION dollars just on purchasing warehouses around the country to convert into detention camps.

If these mega-camps are utilized to the full capacity ICE intends, they'll be the largest prisons in the country, with little real oversight. www.ajc.com/politics/202...

From the bestskeeting author of the Bluesky-famous six-week Bad Bunny 101 comes this essential close reading of the halftime show! 🧵

There it is

BLUESKY WON SPORTS IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA DIVORCE

It was transforming the biggest NFL stage in the world into a sugar cane plantation that did it for me.

Like, the multiple layers of turning an American icon into a plantation and highlighting the history of exploitation of Black and Brown bodies by the NFL and American colonialism simultaneously?

There are a lot of people who are going to complain about being unfairly vilified by that halftime show and it's because they know in their hearts they're on Team Hate.

A quick update on Brian's case:

The defense team successfully pushed back on the government's protective order request, which means the evidence in the case can be made public.

Also, the trial date was set for May 26. We anticipate additional pretrial motions to be filed in the coming weeks.

Photo of Brian Straw thanking attendees at a event to support his legal defense fund

We are so incredibly grateful for the outpouring of support this past weekend. It means everything that we have so many people alongside us in this fight. We could not do this without you.

📸 Paul Goyette

Alexakis says Martinez has also shown good cause for release of the camera images gathered by law enforcement of her vehicle.

Alexakis says she will release the FLOCK camera images, saying they could rebut the government's contentions that Martinez was part of a coordinated gang-related effort to impede law enforcement and that she showed up armed and "ready for a confrontation" that day

Alexakis: "[Marimar Martinez] is a United States citizen. She's a resident of this district. And under our legal system, it bears repeating, she is presumed innocent of any offense of which she has not been convicted."

As to whether the release of the text messages will "sully" Exum, Alexakis notes that the feds have shown "zero concern about the sullying of Ms. Martinez's reputation."

Alexakis says she's not unsympathetic to the 'sullying" of Exum's reputation, but says she's more concerned about the continued sullying of Martinez's reputation by her own government, which has refused to retract any of its claims about her.

Alexakis says the release of the text messages will counter the government's "public narrative" about Martinez and her actions.
"They bear on his credibility. They provide insight as to how others in DHS leadership and other government entities responded to the shooting"

"Either way, Ms. Martinez has shown good cause" for relief, Alexakis says, calling the govt's arguments against their release "unavailing."

Alexakis: "The Department of Homeland Security continues to allege that Ms. Martinez ambushed federal officers, rammed them with her vehicle, and while doing so was armed with a semiautomatic weapon."