Appeals court upholds limits on warrantless ICE arrests at churches
A federal appeals court upheld restrictions on warrantless ICE arrests at houses of worship, ruling that the Trump administration’s policy likely violated federal religious freedom laws. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed a preliminary injunction issued by a Maryland judge,requiring the Department of Homeland Security to adhere to Biden-era safeguards when ICE officers operate near churches. The court found that the policy change, which allowed more discretion for immigration enforcement at religious sites, contributed to decreased worship attendance and participation, causing irreparable harm. The decision emphasized that DHS failed to demonstrate the policy served a compelling government interest in a manner less restrictive of religious exercise, as required by law. The ruling applies specifically to the plaintiffs involved, including religious and advocacy groups, and notes that certain enforcement actions remain permissible. The case highlights ongoing legal debates over immigration enforcement and religious protections.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld limits on warrantless U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests at churches affiliated with a coalition of religious groups, ruling that the Trump administration’s policy likely violated a federal religious freedom law.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a February preliminary injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang, an appointee of former President Barack Obama in Maryland. Chuang had required the Department of Homeland Security to follow Biden-era safeguards when ICE officers were working at or near houses of worship, and the appeals court’s ruling is narrowly tailored to apply only to plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation.
Recommended Stories
” data-large-file=”https://www.conservativenewsdaily.net/breaking-news/wp-content/uploads//2026/08/localimages/AP26216637513861.jpg?w=696″ “https:>
“The present record is replete with evidence that the 2025 Policy has caused a reduction in attendance at the plaintiffs’ houses of worship,” Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, an Obama appointee, wrote in a 40-page decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. “Such a burden, even if limited in time, constitutes irreparable injury.”
The policy, announced at the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, scrapped a directive that generally discouraged immigration enforcement at “protected areas,” including churches, and ordinarily required agency approval before operations at or near those sites.
Under the revised policy, immigration officers were directed to use their discretion and “common sense.”
The 4th Circuit said the plaintiffs, including Quaker organizations, Sikh Temple Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, offered evidence that the change was suppressing worship attendance and participation in immigrant-focused ministries. One Baptist congregation reported a 66% decline in attendance at its English-as-a-second-language classes.
The result differs from a separate challenge to the same DHS policy in Washington, D.C. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied a preliminary injunction sought by 27 Christian and Jewish organizations, finding they had not established standing. Friedrich, an appointee from Trump’s first term, concluded the evidence at that stage did not show houses of worship were “being singled out as special targets” and said congregants appeared to be staying home because of broader ICE activity in their neighborhoods.
The 4th Circuit, by contrast, found that the plaintiffs in the Maryland case had specifically tied their attendance losses to the church-enforcement policy and DHS’s stated plan to allow action at houses of worship.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government must show a policy that substantially burdens religious exercise serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means. The panel said DHS waived that defense by failing to present the argument or supporting evidence to Chuang.
Judge G. Steven Agee, one of the three judges on the unanimous 4th Circuit panel, called DHS’s omission an “inexplicable failure.”
“In short, DHS abdicated its burden of proof at a crucial juncture of the merits analysis,” Agee wrote.
APPEALS COURT GRILLS DOJ OVER TRUMP’S DECISION TO END REFUGEE STATUS FOR RWANDAN IMMIGRANTS
Agee, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, stressed that the injunction applies only to the plaintiffs’ identified places of worship. Arrests supported by administrative or judicial warrants and certain emergency actions remain permissible.
The Washington Examiner contacted representatives from DHS and the Justice Department.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
