Judge Blocks Immigration Raids at Churches, Citing Protection of Religious Freedom

A significant legal ruling has put a halt to the Trump administration’s practice of conducting immigration enforcement operations without warrants in or near churches across the nation. This decision, aimed at protecting religious freedom, imposes a restriction on such activities within a 100-foot radius of church entrances.

In a detailed 62-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, appointed by George W. Bush, highlighted the unnecessary nature of these enforcement efforts except in the most extreme circumstances. He emphasized the potential infringement on religious freedom, noting the unsettling prospect of law enforcement agents conducting raids during church services without judicial oversight.

“The idea that an agent, with no warrant and minimal supervision, could disrupt a church service or target congregants as they arrive is deeply concerning,” Judge Saylor remarked. He further illustrated the gravity of the situation by pointing out that agents, under the current policy, could potentially conduct armed raids during any church event, ranging from regular services to personal ceremonies like weddings and funerals, based solely on their discretion and judgment.

This legal action stems from a 44-page lawsuit filed in July 2025 against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Brought forth by a coalition of churches, the lawsuit claims that these enforcement practices violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The lawsuit underscores the fear that has gripped individuals across the country, deterring them from attending places of worship, regardless of their immigration status. It highlights the adverse effects on churches, noting a decline in attendance and financial contributions, as congregations adapt by moving their gatherings underground to safeguard their members’ well-being.

The court, acting on a motion for an administrative stay with an alternative request for a preliminary injunction, declined to entertain the APA claim and denied the stay while granting the injunction.

Saylor firmly rejected prioritizing the Trump administration’s anti-immigration campaign over religious freedom.

From the opinion, at length:

It hardly requires mentioning that freedom of religion is both a core American value and a basic liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States. That freedom encompasses not merely the freedom to believe, but the freedom to worship, including the freedom to attend church and to participate in sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies. If government interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is only in relatively extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety. The routine enforcement of the immigration laws does not involve such a threat, and cannot justify the harm to religious freedom posed by the new policy.

While offering a concession to the federal government’s concerns over “millions of illegal immigrants within the borders,” the court juxtaposes the necessity of a “substantial government response” with the ability of churches to conduct services and raise money.

“But the need to address that problem cannot override the fundamental liberties on which our nation was founded,” the judge goes on. “And to be clear, the new policy does not simply permit the apprehension of illegal immigrants in churches; it permits, without meaningful restraints, the disruption of church services and functions and the interrogation or seizure of anyone who may be on church property, citizen and non-citizen alike.”

The ruling, however, was not an unalloyed win.

The court found not all of the plaintiffs – led by the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – are able to move forward. While accepting the Lutheran, Baptist, Metropolitan Community Church plaintiffs had suffered cognizable injuries, three Quaker groups were found not to have standing.

The court’s analysis here begins with an application of the analytical framework widely known by legal scholars as “conservative standing doctrine.”

This judicial theory was created in two cases from the 1920s by conservative judges who sought to restrain the use and limits of constitutional redress. In other words, standing doctrine was created — and has over time been honed and sustained — to limit lawsuits against the government. While technically procedural in nature, as opposed to relying on the underlying merits arguments in a dispute, standing arguments tend to be fact-intensive.

To hear Saylor tell it, the Quaker groups were unable to show they had suffered decreased attendance or financial harm as a result of the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy at issue.

While broadly rejecting the “intangible” harms of “fear and anxiety” due to ICE raids, the court found the viable plaintiffs “have suffered at least three cognizable injuries-in-fact: decreased attendance at worship services; decreased attendance at social ministries; and financial consequences.”

As the judge sees it, the crux of the dispute is guided by RFRA; while rejecting the APA claim, the court declined to reach the merits of the First Amendment claim at this stage in the litigation.

The judge offers an example:

[The new ICE policy] would permit immigration-enforcement officers to set up a checkpoint just outside a church, or to question parishioners in the middle of a Catholic Mass. Without question, those activities would substantially hinder, constrain, and inhibit individuals from attending church or religious schools or programs, regardless of citizenship status, thereby imposing a “substantial burden.”

Still, the court hinted that the plaintiffs might have some luck with their First Amendment claim down the line. The judge opined that a RFRA claim “is, essentially, a free-exercise claim that is judged against a more restrictive standard than what the…Constitution requires.”

“The preliminary injunction issued by the Court will permit such operations only in exigent circumstances, regardless of supervisory approval,” Saylor goes on. “The Court can conceive of no circumstance, outside of a true emergency, in which a law-enforcement operation to enforce the immigration laws inside a church would be justifiable under the First Amendment and RFRA.”