Appeals court upholds order limiting ICE arrests at Quaker, Sikh and Baptist houses of worship

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Tuesday affirmed a district court order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to follow its earlier limits on immigration enforcement at the houses of worship belonging to eight religious plaintiffs. The published opinion in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-1512, was argued on May 6 and decided by a unanimous panel of Judges Steven Agee and Pamela Harris and Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan. Keenan wrote the opinion. Agee filed a concurrence.

The policy at issue is a memorandum DHS issued on January 20, 2025, which rescinded a 2021 directive telling officers to refrain, to the fullest extent possible, from enforcement actions in or near what the department called protected areas, including churches and schools. Under the 2025 policy, officers deciding where to make arrests are directed to use their discretion and, in the memorandum’s words, “a healthy dose of common sense.” A DHS spokesperson said that month that the change meant “[c]riminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

Six Quaker meetings, the Sikh Temple Sacramento and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on January 27, 2025, represented by Democracy Forward. They alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. On February 24, 2025, Judge Theodore Chuang granted part of their motion, ordering DHS to abide by the 2021 policy at the plaintiffs’ places of worship. He denied their request for a nationwide injunction, and separately denied their request that the injunction require DHS to obtain judicial warrants before enforcement actions at their places of worship. Neither of those rulings was at issue in the appeal.

The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1993 statute that requires the government to show a compelling interest and the least restrictive means when its actions substantially burden religious exercise. The record before the district court included declarations from Quaker members who said they “would not be as encouraging of any immigrant joining [them] for worship,” and evidence that Cooperative Baptist Fellowship leadership had advised some congregations they could lock church doors even though doing so runs against their belief that the doors should remain open and unlocked. Quaker declarants also described a commitment to pacifism, stating that the presence of “weapons or armed people” at a meeting is contrary to their faith.

On the government’s defense, the panel found that the argument arrived too late. The Justice Department argued on appeal that the 2025 policy furthers a “compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws,” but the opinion notes that the government did not raise that argument in the district court and presented no evidence there that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering it. Citing Bell v. Brockett, the panel held the contention waived.

Turning to irreparable harm, Keenan wrote: “The present record is replete with evidence that the 2025 Policy has caused a reduction in attendance at the plaintiffs’ houses of worship. This uncontested fact is strong evidence that the 2025 Policy has placed a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion. Such a burden, even if limited in time, constitutes irreparable injury.”

Agee’s concurrence set out what the injunction does not do. The only places covered are those the plaintiffs identified to the district court. The order states that it “does not enjoin or restrict” DHS from making arrests in or near places of worship when authorized by an administrative or judicial warrant. Because it requires DHS to follow the 2021 policy, it also carries that policy’s exceptions, which list enforcement actions involving a national security threat, an imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm, hot pursuit of someone posing a public safety threat, and an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case will be destroyed. Where exigent circumstances exist, officers need only consult after the fact.

Agee added a second basis for standing. Citing a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship declarant who said “much of CBF’s budget comes from contributions from our congregations. Fewer worshippers means less money for the congregations, and it means fewer contributions to CBF,” he wrote that the lost contributions are a “pocketbook injury” and a “classic” injury in fact.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform filed a brief supporting the government. Fair and Just Prosecution, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, the Rutherford Institute, a group of academics and a coalition of 19 faith-based, immigrant justice and civil rights organizations filed briefs supporting the plaintiffs.

In a joint statement released by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental promise of religious liberty: every person should be able to gather, worship, pray, and serve their community without fear that immigration enforcement will unlawfully disrupt sacred spaces.”

A separate group of Lutheran synods, Baptist bodies, Quaker meetings and Metropolitan Community Churches won a preliminary injunction against the same policy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Tuesday’s ruling leaves the Maryland injunction in place while the case continues before Judge Chuang.