A federal judge has ruled that immigration agents can continue carrying out enforcement actions at churches, rejecting a request to block the Trump administration’s policy while lawsuits against it proceed.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Trump, issued the decision on April 11, saying the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence to justify a preliminary injunction.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of Christian, Jewish, and Mennonite groups, including the Mennonite Church USA, who argued that the Department of Homeland Security’s updated policy violated their constitutional rights and interfered with their religious practices.
The policy in question was enacted on January 20, the day Trump returned to office. It rescinded an Obama-era rule that had discouraged immigration enforcement in certain “sensitive locations,” including churches, schools, and hospitals.
Under the new guidance, ICE officers may act in these locations without special authorization, provided they apply what the department describes as “common sense” and “discretion.”
Religious groups opposing the policy said it threatens their ability to worship freely and has already caused fear among congregants, especially in immigrant communities.
In their motion, the plaintiffs cited lower attendance at services and instances of ICE surveillance near places of worship. They claimed immigration agents had begun targeting people in or around churches, putting pressure on their ability to assemble and practice their faith. One church reported an enforcement action, while four others described surveillance nearby.
Judge Friedrich determined that the groups had not met the legal threshold needed for an injunction. She noted the incidents did not amount to a credible or imminent threat of enforcement.
In her written opinion, she said the limited number of activities and the absence of any formal directive to focus on religious sites made the plaintiffs’ claims speculative. She also found there was not enough evidence to link attendance declines directly to the policy, suggesting fears of general immigration activity in neighborhoods may be the cause.
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. Friedrich found no pattern of discriminatory enforcement and said the groups had not shown their churches were being deliberately targeted. Without clear proof of a focused effort to arrest people at places of worship, the lawsuit did not meet the standard for blocking the policy.
The decision means the Trump administration’s guidance remains in effect as the case continues in court. Meanwhile, other legal challenges over immigration enforcement in sensitive locations are playing out across the country.
In Maryland, a federal judge issued a temporary order blocking enforcement at religious sites tied to Quaker groups, finding that the policy lacked safeguards and likely violated legal protections. In contrast, a judge in Colorado ruled in favor of the administration in a case involving immigration actions at public schools.
The legal outcomes so far reflect differing views among federal judges over how immigration enforcement should operate at locations previously considered restricted. For now, the Trump policy stands, giving ICE broader authority to conduct operations at churches and other sensitive sites.