Today is @brianstraw.bsky.social’s birthday! We were just talking and he was calling 39 “discount 40,” and we’re gonna try to make fetch happen because you know what’s not a discount? Legal bills for taking on the federal government.
$39 for 39 is happening TODAY. Join us in supporting if you can!
Hey remember how my pal Brian stood up for our neighbors & the 1st Amendment & DOJ indicted him/the Broadview 6 on *conspiracy* changes...?!
IT'S HIS BIRTHDAY 🎉
Just like my grandma used to give me $1 for every year, I tossed $39 into his legal fund ⬇️
Join me if you can: $39 for 39! (HBD Brian🎂!)
The time period of the conspiracy is 9/26/25, the judge notes. The feds have indicated they're alleging a "spontaneous" conspiracy, she says, and they're "not necessarily aware of any" true threats in the case.
About Broadview 6 hearing on bill of particulars.
Jesus said: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart & with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Mtw 22:37-40
Trump: "In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans -- a record -- off of food stamps" (In other words, Republicans cut food stamps)
democrats should internalize that this is what their colleagues think of them and act accordingly
Also in here: I spoke w/Rev. Leandro Fossá, one of 3 faith leaders allowed into the *Broadview, Illinois" ICE facility (the subject of a separate lawsuit) last week after a judge ordered the government to allow them in.
“We cannot choose to love someone only when that person has papers," he said.
The SAVE Act isn't about stopping fraud — it's about stopping voters.
"We love religion and we love bringing it back," Trump just now, one day after yet another group of faith orgs filed a suit alleging his admin violated their religious freedom.
Dozens of religious leaders, orgs and denominations have sued his admin in the past year. religionnews.com/2026/02/23/f...
Trump just described voting as "the greatest privilege of them all."
We don't call it a privilege here. It's a right.
This blatant xenophobic racism against an entire group of immigrants is unacceptable, and every member of Congress who cheered it is a horrifying stain on America.
well I’m watching this and my husband is helping the four year-old and her crew of stuffed pigs travel through distant galaxies in the Enterprise before bed and it’s very clear who is winning this evening
Instead of watching a State of The Union speech that will be largely lacking in honesty or meaningful policy to help American families, feel free to tune into the Village of Oak Park Board of Trustees!
We are discussing homeownership programs, among other things…
Perhaps the government will argue that the conspiracy started on September 19, 2025, when Ms. Abughazaleh was thrown to the ground; or maybe the alleged conspiracy began when organizers called for a protest on September 26, 2025; or maybe the conspiracy began at the crack of dawn on September 26, 2025, when protestors arrived at the Broadview Facility to march at the intersection of Harvard Street and 25th Avenue; or perhaps the conspiracy formed “spontaneously” when Agent A drove his three-ton SUV into the protestors at the intersection where they had been walking for hours in full view of the Broadview police nearby. The discovery only furthers the need for notice on this essential point, contrary to the government’s argument.
Plus this paragraph:
"...or perhaps the conspiracy formed 'spontaneously' when Agent A drove his three-ton SUV into the protestors at the intersection where they had been walking for hours in full view of the Broadview police nearby."
The Broadview Six defendants' motion today is quite damming, with multiple images of those charged either nowhere near the car as it drives through the crowd of protesters or evidence that seems to contradict the government's assertion of a "conspiracy" by the protesters
Japanese American groups held a vigil at the Broadview ICE facility on the Day of Remembrance, which commemorates the 1942 order spurring mass incarceration of those of Japanese ancestry during World War II.
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.](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."
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...
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/...
