The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 18 affirmed a lower court ruling that blocks the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from applying its 2025 policy that rescinded long-standing limits on immigration enforcement at or near houses of worship.
In a published opinion, a three-judge panel upheld the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The appellate court concluded that the Quaker, Sikh, and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship congregations that sued are likely to succeed on their claim that the policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The policy, implemented in January 2025, removed prior guidelines that required immigration offICErs to weigh various considerations before conducting enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including houses of worship. The new policy instead requires only that officers use their discretion and “common sense” in deciding where to conduct enforcement actions, according to the court’s opinion.
The plaintiffs—several Quaker yearly meetings, a Sikh temple, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship—argued that the policy has and will continue to chill immigrant attendance at their worship services and other ministries. They said this decline burdens their ability to worship communally and to minister to immigrant communities, acts they consider fundamental to their religious exercise.
Writing for the panel, Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan stated that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to establish a substantial burden on their religious exercise under RFRA.
The decision affirms the district court’s injunction, which remains in effect pending further proceedings.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform filed an amicus brief supporting the government, while numerous faith-based, immigrant justice, and civil rights organizations, as well as historians and legal scholars, filed briefs supporting the congregations. The government’s position is not detailed beyond the arguments presented in the court’s opinion.