Appeals court upholds block on immigration enforcement at some religious sites
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Aug. 18 upheld a Maryland judge’s order blocking a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that would have loosened limits on immigration enforcement at or near houses of worship while the case proceeds.
The plaintiffs, including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Sikh Temple Sacramento, and several Quaker organizations, sought the injunction after DHS ended the policy that treated churches as “sensitive locations” in January 2025.
DHS previously restricted immigration enforcement from conducting arrests at churches and other sensitive locations unless there is approval from a supervisor or there is an urgent need to take enforcement action.
Instead, the Trump administration’s policy requires officials to use “discretion” and “common sense” when deciding where to conduct immigration enforcement.
The plaintiffs filed suit against DHS in the District of Maryland on Jan. 27, 2025, alleging that the policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering DHS to follow its prior guidelines, most recently issued in 2021. On May 6, 2025, DHS appealed the preliminary injunction to the 4th Circuit.
The case is not the first lawsuit of its kind. Dozens of other religious groups have brought similar lawsuits against DHS following the policy shift.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in February he and Rev. Franklin Graham teamed up to oppose immigration enforcement in churches, warning that ICE’s presence at Sunday Mass was driving people away. He called the practice a violation of religious freedom, saying the federal government cannot harass people who come to worship.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act invoked
In the Aug. 18 decision, the senior circuit judge, Barbara Milano Keenan, wrote the judges “hold that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims.” She said they agree with the lower court that DHS policy likely violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the RFRA.
“RFRA proscribes not only outright governmental prohibition of the free exercise of religion but also forbids indirect coercion, substantial pressure, or penalties being placed on such free exercise,” she said. “Governmental action meeting this test creates a substantial burden on free exercise, rendering that action subject to strict scrutiny.”
The decision was met with positive reactions from the plaintiffs, who said it “reaffirms a fundamental promise of religious liberty: every person should be able to gather, worship, pray, and serve their community without fear that immigration enforcement will unlawfully disrupt sacred spaces.”
“We are grateful that the court has preserved these protections while this case moves forward, and we will continue fighting to ensure that religious freedom remains meaningful for every congregation and every person who walks through our doors,” the coalition of plaintiffs said in a statement.
Saint of the Day – rosary.team
