Background
For more than 30 years, federal immigration authorities generally avoided enforcement operations at sensitive locations, including houses of worship. A 2021 Department of Homeland Security memorandum instructed officers, to the fullest extent possible, not to take enforcement action in or near protected areas and generally required advance approval from agency headquarters. In January 2025, DHS rescinded that policy and directed officers to use discretion and common sense. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then authorized supervisors to approve operations at or near protected areas case by case, without bright-line rules.
Twenty-seven Christian and Jewish organizations sued DHS and related officials under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought a preliminary injunction restoring the prior sensitive-locations policy and prohibiting enforcement at their places of worship absent exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant. The district court denied relief, concluding that the organizations likely lacked standing because the threatened enforcement was insufficiently imminent and other alleged injuries were not adequately traceable to the policy change or redressable by the requested relief.
The Court’s Holding
In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed. The majority held that all plaintiffs likely had associational standing on behalf of their member congregations based on the imminent threat of increased immigration enforcement at houses of worship. Because the case involved an agency policy allegedly burdening religious expression, the court applied the credible-threat standard for pre-enforcement challenges rather than the district court’s more demanding test drawn from firearms cases. The government’s announced intention to increase enforcement at sensitive locations, combined with documented enforcement and surveillance at or near houses of worship, sufficiently established likely imminent injury.
The court also held that the threatened harm was fairly traceable to DHS’s policy change and likely redressable by either requested form of relief. Restoring the prior policy would likely reduce at least some enforcement activity because that policy presumptively discouraged operations at protected locations and imposed approval and mitigation requirements. A judicial-warrant requirement would add procedural and substantive barriers that could deter or delay enforcement. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction or likely to prevail on their First Amendment, RFRA, or APA claims; it remanded for the district court to consider the preliminary-injunction motion further. Judge Rao dissented, reasoning principally that reinstating the earlier guidance would not likely redress the asserted injuries.
Key Takeaways
- Religious organizations may establish associational standing by showing that member congregations face a credible threat of enforcement that allegedly burdens protected religious expression.
- A plaintiff seeking preliminary relief need not prove that an injunction will eliminate every injury; a likely reduction in even some challenged enforcement activity can satisfy redressability.
- The decision addresses standing only and does not require DHS to restore the former policy, impose a judicial-warrant rule, or resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory claims.
Why It Matters
The ruling permits a broad coalition of faith organizations to continue challenging DHS’s removal of protections for houses of worship. It also clarifies that the D.C. Circuit’s demanding pre-enforcement standing test from certain firearms cases does not govern challenges to agency action allegedly burdening expressive or religious rights.
On remand, the district court must evaluate the remaining preliminary-injunction requirements and the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their First Amendment, RFRA, and APA claims. The scope and legality of any injunction—including the requested judicial-warrant requirement—remain unresolved.