Special Poll
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts at certain places of worship, granting relief to a handful of Quaker, Baptist, and Sikh congregations that challenged the policy in court.
The ruling affects only the religious groups that filed the lawsuit, which includes Quaker congregations in Philadelphia, Richmond, Maryland, and New England, as well as a Sikh temple in Sacramento and a coalition of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches based in Georgia.
Judge Theodore Chuang, who issued the decision from his court in Greenbelt, stated that the burden on religious groups caused by the policy is not hypothetical but already happening. He pointed to reports indicating that congregations with large immigrant populations have seen declining attendance since the administration’s directive was announced last month. Chuang referenced language from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2025 policy announcement, which declared that “criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.” He determined that this statement makes it reasonable to assume that enforcement actions would soon take place at the plaintiffs’ places of worship.
The judge found that the policy likely violates both the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that limits government actions that interfere with religious practices.
In his ruling, Chuang clarified that his decision applies specifically to these religious institutions because they openly welcome immigrants, regardless of their legal status, making them likely targets for enforcement under the new policy.
He also acknowledged the government’s broader need for law enforcement operations in or near places of worship but stated that, in this case, the administration’s lack of clear limitations or safeguards raised serious constitutional and legal concerns.
“In issuing this injunction, the Court does not question that law enforcement, when necessary, must have the ability to conduct operations in or near places of worship,” Chuang wrote. “The court finds only that at this early stage of the case, on the sensitive and fraught issue of when and under what circumstances law enforcement may intrude into places of worship to conduct warrantless operations, the 2025 policy’s lack of any meaningful limitations or safeguards … does not satisfy these constitutional and statutory requirements.”
The decision temporarily halts enforcement actions at these specific religious sites while the legal battle over the policy continues.