- A federal judge partially blocked a Department of Homeland Security policy allowing immigration arrests at or near worship sites.
- DHS' old policy, standing for over three decades, restrained agents from making arrests at 'sensitive locations' like churches, schools and hospitals.
- The judge's ruling applies only to the Quaker, Sikh and Baptist groups who claimed their religious liberty was threatened by the DHS policy.
On Monday, a federal judge partially blocked a Department of Homeland Security policy that allows immigration arrests at or near places of worship.
The lawsuit was brought by Quaker, Sikh and Baptist congregations, who claimed their religious liberty was threatened by the DHS policy.
Judge Theodore D. Chuang, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland, barred DHS from enforcing its new policy at the worship sites of the religious groups who sued.
“Given that each of plaintiffs has religious beliefs that cause them to welcome and serve immigrants, has significant immigrant membership or operates in communities with significant immigrant populations, and has not disavowed that they will continue to serve immigrants both with and without legal status, it is reasonable to expect that DHS will direct immigration enforcement toward plaintiffs specifically,” Chuang wrote.
For over three decades, the DHS' standing policy was that arrests should not take place in “sensitive locations” — such as churches, schools or hospitals — except in extreme circumstances. Trump’s acting DHS secretary reversed that policy in January.
“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” a DHS spokesperson said, announcing the change. “The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”
In the lawsuit, the religious organizations argued that the threat of immigration enforcement at or near their worship sites was a violation of their First Amendment rights and their free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“The very threat of that enforcement deters congregants from attending services, especially members of immigrant communities,” the lawsuit read. “Losing congregants is a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, especially when those congregants would bring to worship different backgrounds and life experiences. And deterring worshippers from attending services chills Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights of association.”
On that front, Chuang determined that the plaintiffs demonstrated “actual or imminent reductions in attendance” to worship services, English classes and other gatherings within their houses of worship.
“A reduction in attendance at religious services and activities constitutes a concrete injury in fact,” Chuang wrote.
He further determined traceability between these reductions and the newly implemented DHS policy, noting that the reductions in attendance occurred “only since the issuance of the 2025 Policy,” and parishioners cited the policy as the reason for avoiding worship sites. Lawyers disputed a causal relationship between the policy and reductions in attendance.
“Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the willingness of their congregants to attend worship and participate in ministry services is presently being chilled, and that, particularly at CBF and the Sikh Temple, attendance at such activities has already declined,” Chuang wrote.
Chuang did not fully rule in favor of the religious groups, however. The plaintiffs requested that DHS be banned, nationwide, from “carrying out immigration-enforcement operations at houses of worship absent a judicial warrant or exigent circumstance.” Chuang, instead, ordered DHS to revert to the precedent policy. That policy, implemented in 2021 by then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, said immigration enforcement at sensitive locations should be avoided “to the fullest extent possible” with limited exceptions.
Further, Chuang’s ruling applies only to those congregations listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit: several Quaker groups, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Sikh Temple Sacramento.
“The Court finds only that at this early stage of the case, on the sensitive and fraught issue of when and under what circumstances law enforcement may intrude into places of worship to conduct warrantless operations, the 2025 Policy’s lack of any meaningful limitations or safeguards on such activity likely does not satisfy these constitutional and statutory requirements as to Plaintiffs, and that a return to the status quo is therefore warranted until the exact contours of what is necessary to avoid unlawful infringement on religious exercise are determined later in this case,” Chuang wrote.
A DHS spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.