WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday sided with the Trump administration in allowing immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations at houses of worship for now, despite a lawsuit filed by religious groups over the new policy.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, more than two dozen Christian and Jewish groups representing millions of Americans.

She found that the plaintiffs lack standing, or the legal right to sue, since only a handful of immigration enforcement actions have been conducted in or around churches or other houses of worship and that the evidence at this point doesn’t show “that places of worship are being singled out as special targets.”

The plaintiffs are reviewing the decision and assessing their options, said their lead counsel, Kelsi Corkran.

“We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” said Corkran, the Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection.

The religious groups argued the policy violated the right to practice their religion. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, attendance has declined significantly, with some areas showing double-digit percentage drops, they said.

The judge, though, found that the groups had not shown their drops were definitively linked to the church policy specifically, as opposed to broader increased actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other agencies.

“That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” wrote Friedrich, who was appointed by the Republican president during his first term.

That means that simply reversing the policy on houses of worship wouldn’t necessarily mean immigrants would return to church, she found.

On Jan. 20, his first day back in office, Trump’s administration rescinded a Department of Homeland Security policy limiting where migrant arrests could happen. Its new policy said field agents using “common sense” and “discretion” can conduct immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship without a supervisor’s approval.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed the new Homeland Security directive departs from the government’s 30-year-old policy against staging immigration enforcement operations in “protected areas” or “sensitive locations.”

The plaintiffs did offer a handful of examples of enforcement or surveillance, according to the judge’s ruling. They cited reports of an immigrant arrested at one Georgia church and of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement search at a Georgia church day care center. The plaintiffs also cited four cases of immigration officers appearing to conduct surveillance near faith-based sites, such as photographing people in line for food.

The ruling comes as Trump’s immigration crackdown hits courtrooms around the country. On Thursday alone, another judge cleared the way for the administration to require people in the country illegally to register with the government even as the Supreme Court ordered the administration to work to bring back a man mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador.

There have been at least two other lawsuits over that sensitive locations policy. One Maryland-based judge agreed to block immigration enforcement operations for some religious faiths, including Quakers.

A judge in Colorado, though, sided with the administration in another lawsuit over the reversal of the part of the policy that had limited immigration arrests at schools.

Despite the immediate setback, the plaintiffs can continue to press their case in the lawsuit.