By Nate Raymond
Aug 18 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld an order limiting federal immigration enforcement at eight houses of worship affiliated with three faith groups, saying religious activities at the sites could be hindered by the operations.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with eight houses of worship from the Quaker, Sikh, and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship traditions in finding that a policy President Donald Trump’s administration adopted likely violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The case is one of a number of similar legal challenges that religious groups have filed nationally.
The Trump administration had argued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s policy did not prevent the plaintiffs from conducting worship or ministry services, and said the plaintiffs could not establish it would lead immigrants to choose to not attend their religious services.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, writing for the panel, said DHS had “made clear that it intends to target houses of worship in future immigration enforcement actions.”
Keenan pointed to a statement by an agency spokesperson in January 2025 saying it would ensure people “will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”
“For the plaintiffs, who welcome immigrant worshipers and have locations in or near immigrant communities, DHS’s statement emphasizing the rationale for this policy change shows that the threat of immigration enforcement at their houses of worship is real and substantial,” Keenan wrote.
Her opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, a fellow appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, and U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.
Skye Perryman, whose liberal legal group Democracy Forward represented the plaintiffs, said the ruling “reaffirms that the Trump-Vance administration cannot force people of faith to abandon their ministries or make people worship under the constant threat of indiscriminate enforcement activities.”
“Religious freedom is not conditional, and it protects us when we gather to worship within a church, meeting house, temple, or other house of worship,” she said in a statement.
A DHS spokesperson in a statement said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not target places of worship. But it said if “a dangerous illegal alien felon were to flee into a place of worship, there may be a situation where an arrest is made to protect public safety.”
“Criminals are no longer able to hide in places of worship to avoid arrest,” the DHS spokesperson said.
The Trump administration, upon the Republican’s return to the White House in January 2025, rescinded a 2021 policy from Democratic President Joe Biden’s tenure limiting immigration enforcement in “protected areas.”
Those areas included places of worship or religious study. The Biden-era policy directed agents to avoid arresting people or conducting other enforcement actions in the protected areas and required them to seek agency approval before conducting an enforcement action in those areas.
DHS under Trump rescinded that policy and instead directed agents to “use that discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense” in deciding where to conduct immigration enforcement actions.
The eight houses of worship sued, arguing the new policy would infringe their rights to religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by chilling attendance at worship services and impeding their ability to minister to immigrant communities.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland agreed in February 2026 and issued a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to act in accordance with its prior 2021 guidelines.
The 4th Circuit’s ruling only addressed the claims that the policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the court opted against deciding the First Amendment issues.
Agee, in a concurring opinion, stressed that the injunction’s scope was narrow, as it only covered entities affiliated with the plaintiffs and did not restrict DHS’s actions at any other places identified as sensitive locations in the Biden-era policy, such as shelters and hospitals.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by David Gregorio)
Comments