A federal appeals court has upheld a preliminary injunction that bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting warrantless arrests at houses of worship belonging to a coalition of religious organizations, ruling that the Trump administration's 2025 enforcement policy likely violates a landmark federal religious liberty statute.
The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in a decision that found the Department of Homeland Security failed to meet its legal burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, the 1993 law that prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening religious exercise without a compelling reason and the least restrictive means of achieving it.
The ruling keeps in place a February preliminary injunction requiring DHS to follow Biden-era "sensitive locations" safeguards when ICE operates at or near houses of worship tied to the plaintiff congregations. The decision does not apply broadly to all churches or religious institutions nationwide, but it hands the administration a pointed loss on the intersection of immigration enforcement and religious liberty, two issues that sit at the center of conservative legal thought.
The case arose after the Trump administration scrapped Obama- and Biden-era protections that generally directed ICE agents to avoid enforcement actions at so-called sensitive locations, including churches, schools, and hospitals. The plaintiffs, a coalition that includes Quaker organizations, the Sikh Temple Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, challenged the new policy under RFRA, arguing it chilled religious attendance and burdened their ministries.
The Fourth Circuit agreed. Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, writing for the panel, pointed to extensive evidence in the record showing measurable harm to religious exercise since the policy change took effect.
"The present record is replete with evidence that the 2025 Policy has caused a reduction in attendance at the plaintiffs' houses of worship. Such a burden, even if limited in time, constitutes irreparable injury."
One Baptist congregation documented a 66% drop in attendance at its English-as-a-second-language classes, the Washington Examiner reported. Other plaintiff organizations described similar declines across immigrant-focused ministries, food pantries, and worship services.
Perhaps the most striking element of the ruling is what DHS did not do. Under RFRA, once a plaintiff shows a substantial burden on religious exercise, the burden shifts to the government. The government must then demonstrate that its policy serves a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means available. DHS did neither.
Judge G. Steven Agee, a George W. Bush appointee, did not hold back about the gap in the government's defense.
"In short, DHS abdicated its burden of proof at a crucial juncture of the merits analysis."
The court characterized the failure as "inexplicable," noting that RFRA's framework is well established and that the government had every opportunity to present evidence of a compelling interest in conducting warrantless enforcement operations specifically at houses of worship. It chose not to.
That silence left the panel with a one-sided record. The plaintiffs offered declarations, attendance data, and testimony from religious leaders. DHS offered no competing justification under the statute that Congress designed to protect religious exercise from exactly this kind of federal overreach.
The injunction does not create a blanket sanctuary policy for every church in America. It applies to the plaintiff congregations and requires DHS to follow the prior administration's sensitive-locations framework when ICE agents operate at or near those specific houses of worship. Warrantless arrests remain permissible in other settings, and the ruling does not disturb ICE's authority to enforce immigration law generally.
Still, the decision carries weight beyond its immediate scope. It establishes, at least within the Fourth Circuit, that scrapping sensitive-locations protections can trigger RFRA liability when the government cannot explain why enforcement at churches serves a compelling interest. Any future attempt by DHS to broaden enforcement at religious sites within that circuit will now face this precedent.
The procedural posture matters, too. A preliminary injunction is not a final ruling on the merits. The district court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed, and the Fourth Circuit agreed that finding was not an abuse of discretion. The case will continue, and DHS will have another chance to mount a RFRA defense, assuming it chooses to do so this time, as Courthouse News reported.
The case exposes a tension that runs through conservative legal priorities. Immigration hawks want maximum enforcement flexibility. Religious liberty advocates want the strongest possible shield against government interference with worship and ministry. RFRA was built to provide that shield, and the Fourth Circuit applied it as written.
The administration's decision not to argue compelling interest under RFRA is difficult to explain on strategic grounds. RFRA is a statute conservatives have championed for decades, from the Hobby Lobby case to battles over vaccine mandates and zoning disputes. Ignoring its framework in court does not make the statute go away. It simply hands the other side an uncontested win on a legal standard the government helped create.
The 66% attendance drop at one congregation's ESL classes illustrates the kind of concrete, documentable harm courts look for when evaluating irreparable injury. Whether one views those classes as charitable outreach or as a magnet for illegal immigration, the legal question under RFRA is whether the government burdened religious exercise and whether it justified that burden. On this record, the answer was clear.
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings. DHS can still present a compelling-interest argument on the merits, though the Fourth Circuit's language about "abdication" sets a pointed tone for the litigation ahead. The government could also seek en banc review or petition the Supreme Court, though the preliminary-injunction posture makes that path less likely at this stage.
For the plaintiff congregations, the injunction means their members can attend worship and ministry programs without the immediate threat of warrantless ICE operations on church grounds. For the administration, the ruling is a reminder that enforcement policy does not operate in a legal vacuum, and that RFRA applies to immigration agencies the same way it applies to every other arm of the federal government.
When the government refuses to defend its own policy under a statute Congress passed to protect religious liberty, courts do not fill in the blanks. They rule on the record in front of them. DHS left the bench empty, and the Fourth Circuit scored accordingly.
