A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Tuesday maintained a block on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that allowed immigration enforcement actions at specific houses of worship. The unanimous decision leaves a preliminary injunction in place while a lawsuit filed by Quaker, Sikh, and Cooperative Baptist groups proceeds. The lower court order, issued last year, prevents the government from applying its 2025 enforcement policy to the religious organizations named in the suit.
The legal dispute began during the early days of the current Trump administration when DHS rescinded a prior policy from the Biden administration. The previous guidance had restricted immigration arrests at "sensitive locations," such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Under the new 2025 guidelines, the administration directed immigration officers to use their discretion and "common sense" when determining whether to conduct enforcement actions in these areas.
In the court's opinion, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote that the houses of worship demonstrated that the DHS policy creates a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise. The court found that the threat of enforcement had a "chilling effect," resulting in documented declines in attendance among the Sikh and Cooperative Baptist congregations. Judge Keenan noted that for religious groups serving immigrant communities, the government's stated goal of preventing individuals from "hiding" in churches made the threat of arrest "real and substantial."
The legal conflict highlights a significant shift in federal immigration tactics and the protections afforded to religious institutions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). By upholding the injunction, the 4th Circuit has set a temporary precedent that government enforcement priorities may be restricted if they are found to exert "substantial pressure" on religious groups to alter their worship practices or ministries. This affects how federal agencies must balance national immigration enforcement goals against the First Amendment rights of religious organizations that provide services to immigrant populations.
The litigation will now continue in federal court to determine if the 2025 DHS policy is a permanent violation of religious liberty laws. While the injunction currently only protects the specific plaintiffs—the Quakers, Sikhs, and Cooperative Baptists named in the suit—the final outcome of the case could influence future immigration enforcement boundaries nationwide. A DHS spokesperson previously stated in January 2025 that the policy was intended to ensure "criminals" could not avoid arrest in schools and churches, suggesting the government may continue to defend the policy's necessity as the case moves toward a final judgment.