Fourth Circuit upholds injunction barring immigration arrests at some houses of worship

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit upheld Tuesday an injunction barring immigration officials from adopting a relaxed policy on enforcement actions in places of worship. The injunction, sought by groups of Quakers, Sikhs and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, came after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security rescinded a longstanding policy of limiting immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship in January 2025. The injunction, granted by a Maryland-based federal judge, requires the department to revert to prior guidelines articulated in 2021 under Joe Biden. “This is an important victory for religious liberty,” Selden Smith, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Religious Society of Friends presiding clerk, said in a statement. “Our Quaker form of worship, in which all ministry emerges from the congregation, is strengthened by the presence of immigrants and threatened by the prospect of ICE raids.” The 2025 decision, announced in a memorandum from then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman, instructed immigration officials to use discretion and common sense when deciding whether to conduct enforcement actions in sensitive areas. The groups argue the threat of arrest or harassment by federal agents has made some members fearful of attending worship services, infringing on their right to religious liberty. The Quakers, formerly known as the Religious Society of Friends, further claim the presence of armed law enforcement officers near meetinghouses violates their pacifist beliefs. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan agreed with the lower court that the new policy likely violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and their First Amendment right to expressive association. “It reasonably can be predicted that many immigrants will decide not to attend the plaintiffs’ houses of worship because of the new policy,” the Barack Obama appointee said. The 2021 policy issued by then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas required agents to seek approval from their agency before taking an enforcement action near a house of worship except in circumstances including threats to national security or the pursuit of a personally observed border-crosser. The policy also instructed agents to avoid taking enforcement actions near places of worship to the fullest extent possible. The government spent much of its appeal arguing the groups lacked the standing required for injunctive relief. “Under the District Court’s reasoning, religious communities would have standing — and suffer constitutional injury — whenever the government takes any action that incidentally reduces attendance at their services, from the enforcement of criminal laws resulting in the arrest of congregants to economic policies that prompt individuals to work rather than worship,” the government wrote in its brief. “That result is plainly untenable.” The government argued the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the Huffman memorandum, rather than President Donald Trump’s other immigration enforcement initiatives, caused declines in attendance. Keenan ruled the plaintiffs need not show the Huffman memorandum was the sole reason for the decline in attendance. “The present plaintiffs showed that they already have experienced a decline in immigrant attendance at their houses of worship after issuance of the 2025 policy, and that immigrants, as well as other congregants, have stated that they are less likely to attend future services because of this policy,” Keenan said. Keenan cited the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York. The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration, which sought to add a question to the 2020 census asking whether respondents are United States citizens. A group of states, counties and cities challenged the question on the theory that it would reduce participation and lead to an inaccurate population count. The high court rejected the government’s argument that the contentions were too speculative because they relied on third parties’ independent action. The majority held the plaintiffs provided enough evidence that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates, making a decline in participation predictable because of the citizenship question. “The government’s argument in the present case about the predictable effect of the 2025 policy is even weaker than its losing argument in Department of Commerce,” Keenan said. The government also attacked redressability, arguing the injunction won’t cure the purported injuries because immigration officials can still conduct enforcement actions inside houses of worship under the 2021 guidance, albeit with more hurdles. Keenan held the plaintiffs cleared what she defined as a low bar of redressability. “As a matter of logic, at least some of the immigrants, who report they will not visit houses of worship because of the new directive articulated in the 2025 policy, will return to the plaintiffs’ houses of worship if DHS reinstates its old policy limiting enforcement actions at those locations,” Keenan said. Beyond standing, the government also disputed that the Huffman memorandum violates the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. “The Huffman memorandum treats houses of worship the same as other common locations,” the government said. “It does not bar anyone from attending church, and plaintiffs’ parishioners’ alleged fear of immigration enforcement at plaintiffs’ houses of worship is no more than the incidental result of neutral and generally applicable government action.” Keenan disagreed with the assertion that the Huffman memorandum, which states “criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” doesn’t aim to increase enforcement actions at places of worship. “The evidence showed that this increased threat of immigration enforcement at the plaintiffs’ houses of worship has resulted in substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to violate numerous beliefs,” Keenan said. The lower court declined to issue a nationwide injunction, instead limiting the ruling to the churches, meetinghouses and gurdwaras operated by the plaintiffs, including Quaker societies in Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York. U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris, another Obama appointee, completed the panel. The government did not respond to a request for comment. “Religious freedom is not conditional, and it protects us when we gather to worship within a church, meeting house, temple or other house of worship,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This decision reaffirms that the Trump-Vance administration cannot force people of faith to abandon their ministries or make people worship under the constant threat of indiscriminate enforcement activities.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.