Background
For decades, federal immigration agencies generally limited enforcement actions at or near houses of worship and other sensitive locations. A 2021 policy directed officers, to the fullest extent possible, to avoid enforcement in or near protected areas, required advance approval absent exigent circumstances, and instructed officers to minimize interference with access. In January 2025, DHS rescinded those safeguards and replaced them with a policy directing officers to use discretion and “common sense.”
Quaker meetings, Sikh Temple Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They presented evidence that the new policy had discouraged immigrants and other congregants from attending worship and ministries, impaired communal religious practice, and pressured congregations to lock doors or refrain from inviting immigrants. The district court entered a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to follow the 2021 policy when conducting enforcement actions in or near the plaintiffs’ places of worship, but denied nationwide relief and a request to require judicial warrants.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that the plaintiffs were likely to establish Article III standing because they offered concrete evidence of decreased attendance and congregants’ fear of immigration enforcement. The court concluded that those injuries were fairly traceable to the 2025 policy as a predictable response to government action and likely redressable by restoring the earlier restrictions.
The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed under RFRA. The evidence showed that the increased threat of enforcement at houses of worship substantially burdened communal worship, immigrant ministry, open-door practices, and other sincerely held religious commitments. DHS waived its strict-scrutiny defense by presenting no supporting legal argument or evidence in the district court. Because the RFRA claim supported preliminary relief, the court did not decide the First Amendment expressive-association claim.
Key Takeaways
- A religious organization may establish standing when a government policy predictably deters third parties from attending its worship services and ministries.
- A policy need not directly prohibit worship to substantially burden religious exercise under RFRA; indirect pressure and reduced participation may suffice.
- The injunction applies only to the plaintiffs’ identified places of worship and permits enforcement authorized under the incorporated 2021 policy, including specified exigent circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes that changes in enforcement policy can burden religious organizations through their predictable effects on congregants, even when the organizations themselves are not enforcement targets. It also underscores that the government must develop and preserve a claimant-specific strict-scrutiny defense when a RFRA plaintiff shows a substantial burden.
The ruling is preliminary and fact-dependent. It does not prohibit all immigration enforcement at houses of worship, extend protection to every religious institution or sensitive location, or finally resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.