Federal Appeals Court Upholds Restrictions on Immigration Enforcement at Over 1,400 Houses of Worship

NewsWK — A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction restricting Department of Homeland Security agents from conducting standard immigration enforcement actions at or near more than 1,400 specific houses of worship across 33 states and the District of Columbia. The decision preserves an earlier district court order while broader litigation over the federal government’s enforcement authorities moves forward.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary order originally issued by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. The underlying dispute challenges the administration’s policy, enacted in early 2025, that rescinded previous restrictions designating certain locations—including churches, schools, and medical facilities—as sensitive areas where civil immigration enforcement was largely discouraged.

Why it matters here

For communities across the country, the intersection of federal immigration law and religious assembly touches core constitutional questions regarding religious freedom, public safety, and executive discretion in enforcing federal statutes. The decision highlights ongoing legal friction between federal agencies seeking to uphold immigration laws and organizations that argue enforcement presence near communal institutions hampers their operations.

At the center of the dispute is how federal authorities balance the duty to apprehend individuals residing in the country unlawfully against First Amendment protections. While advocacy groups argue that visible enforcement operations deter congregants from attending services or participating in community outreach, law enforcement proponents contend that creating geographic safe havens undermines the rule of law and creates loopholes that prevent officers from carrying out their sworn duties.

The Legal Conflict and Appellate Ruling

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of religious organizations, including the Sikh Temple Sacramento, several yearly meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which encompasses hundreds of member congregations across multiple states. The plaintiffs argued that the federal policy shift led to a decline in attendance among immigrant congregants and interfered with their religious missions.

Writing for the majority, Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated an immediate impact on their operations. Judges Pamela Harris and G. Steven Agee joined the opinion.

Judge Agee authored a concurring opinion that emphasized the relatively narrow application of the preliminary injunction. He pointed out that the ruling does not impose a nationwide ban on enforcement near all religious sites, nor does it apply to other sensitive locations such as schools or libraries. Furthermore, the injunction allows federal agents to proceed with enforcement when operating under judicial or administrative warrants, pursuing active suspects, responding to threats of violence, or addressing emergency circumstances.

Administration Position and Enforcement Perspectives

The Department of Homeland Security has maintained that its policies do not single out religious institutions, but rather grant front-line officers the practical discretion required to enforce federal law effectively. Federal officials reiterated that law enforcement officers should not be barred from performing their duties when individuals subject to removal seek refuge in public or private facilities.

Legal and policy analysts supportive of strict border security and statutory enforcement have criticized the decision, arguing that federal immigration officers must retain the authority to act across jurisdictions without arbitrary spatial constraints. Matt O’Brien, deputy executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which filed an amicus brief supporting the federal government, criticized the legal reasoning behind the injunction, arguing, “There is zero reason, constitutional or otherwise, why immigration enforcement should be prohibited near houses of worship.”

Background and Context

Federal guidance regarding enforcement at sensitive locations has shifted across administrations over the past decade. Under previous guidance established in 2021, immigration officers were directed to avoid operations near sensitive locations to the fullest extent possible unless they received high-level agency authorization or faced emergency circumstances. The revised 2025 directive replaced that blanket approach with instructions allowing agents to exercise individual discretion and operational judgment when evaluating enforcement near such facilities.

The preliminary injunction temporarily reinstates the framework of the 2021 rules exclusively for the participating plaintiff congregations until the case reaches a final resolution on the merits in federal court.