D.C. Circuit revives faith groups’ bid to limit worship-site enforcement

A divided D.C. Circuit panel on Oct. 20, 2026, reversed a lower court’s denial of 27 religious organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction against changes to immigration-enforcement guidance at worship sites. The 2-1 ruling found the groups likely had standing to seek that relief and sent the motion back to district court for further consideration.

The ruling does not stop immigration enforcement at houses of worship or reinstate the earlier federal guidance. It reverses the denial of a request for interim protection, not a dismissal of the lawsuit, and does not decide whether the challenged policy is unlawful.

How the guidance changed i

The case, Mennonite Church USA v. Department of Homeland Security, challenges a Jan. 20, 2025, DHS memorandum that rescinded earlier guidance limiting immigration-enforcement actions in or near sensitive locations, including houses of worship. The change removed those previous limits.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memorandum issued Jan. 31, 2025, provided for case-by-case supervisory decisions about whether, where and when enforcement could take place in or near protected locations. Unlike the former guidance, the replacement approach did not set bright-line rules. That difference is central to the groups’ request: they are seeking court-ordered limits while their lawsuit proceeds, rather than a final ruling in the case at this stage.

The coalition includes 27 Christian and Jewish organizations. The Episcopal Church was joined by 26 ecumenical and interfaith partners. The organizations represent congregations and worshippers whose interests are at issue in the request for interim relief.

What the appeals court decided i

The panel majority concluded that the organizations’ members likely faced imminent harm from increased enforcement at houses of worship. It found that the alleged harm was linked to the policy change and that the requested relief could likely address at least some of it. That is a preliminary assessment about whether the groups may pursue court intervention, not a finding that their legal claims are correct.

The groups asked the district court for relief that included restoring the former policy during the lawsuit and restricting enforcement at worship sites absent exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant. The appeals court returned that request for further consideration but did not grant those restrictions.

Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the organizations had not clearly established standing. She also said restoring the earlier guidance would not necessarily change how the executive branch conducts enforcement. The panel did not resolve the groups’ claims under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.

The district court is to reconsider the preliminary-injunction motion. The appellate opinion does not set a date for that review or determine what relief the lower court should grant.