Appeals Court Keeps Immigration Limits at Eight Worship Sites
The Fourth Circuit on August 18, 2026, preserved limits on federal immigration-enforcement activity at houses of worship affiliated with Quaker, Sikh and Cooperative Baptist groups.
The court affirmed a preliminary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to follow its prior 2021 sensitive-location guidelines when pursuing enforcement actions in or near the plaintiff-affiliated sites. The ruling is narrow. It does not create nationwide protection for churches, temples, gurdwaras, meetinghouses or other religious institutions.
What the court decided
The appeals court held that the faith organizations had standing to challenge the policy because they showed concrete and likely harm from declining attendance and reduced participation in worship and ministry programs.
The judges also found that the 2025 DHS policy likely imposed a substantial burden on the groups’ religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The court said the policy increased the risk of enforcement activity at worship sites and placed pressure on the organizations to change how they welcomed and served immigrant communities.
The Fourth Circuit did not decide the plaintiffs’ separate First Amendment claim. The merits of the case also remain unresolved because the injunction is preliminary rather than a final judgment.
Which institutions are covered
The plaintiffs include Philadelphia, New England, Baltimore, Adelphi, Richmond and New York Quaker yearly meetings or affiliated Friends meetings; Sikh Temple Sacramento; and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
The injunction applies only to the plaintiff-affiliated houses of worship identified in the case. The district court denied a request for a nationwide injunction, and the Fourth Circuit opinion says other places of worship or other sensitive locations would need to pursue their own legal claims and develop their own evidence.
That means other churches, temples, gurdwaras, synagogues, meetinghouses, hospitals and shelters do not automatically receive protection from this decision.
What the 2021 guidelines require
The 2021 framework generally directed DHS agencies to avoid enforcement actions in or near protected areas to the fullest extent possible. It required advance approval before an enforcement action unless exigent circumstances existed and instructed agents to consider alternative locations and ways to minimize disruption to access.
The framework covered more than arrests. Its examples included civil apprehensions, searches, inspections, seizures, service of charging documents or subpoenas, interviews and immigration-enforcement surveillance.
What remains allowed
The injunction does not prohibit every enforcement action at or near the affected worship sites. The court’s order expressly preserves arrests authorized by an administrative or judicial warrant.
It also incorporates the 2021 policy’s limited exigent-circumstance exceptions. The opinion lists examples including a national-security threat, an imminent risk of death or violence, hot pursuit of a person posing a public-safety threat, or an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case will be destroyed.
When exigent circumstances exist, prior approval is not required, although the 2021 framework calls for post-action consultation. When they do not exist, DHS generally must obtain advance approval before taking an enforcement action in or near a covered site. The framework also calls for actions to be conducted in nonpublic areas and in a way that minimizes the chance of discouraging access.
Why the faith groups said the policy caused harm
The litigation record described effects on worship and community programs. The court cited evidence that immigrant congregants were less willing to attend services or participate in ministries because they feared being targeted.
One Cooperative Baptist congregation reported a 66% decline in attendance at English-as-a-Second-Language classes. Other congregations reported reduced participation in food pantries, shelters and immigrant-support services. At Sikh Temple Sacramento, leaders said concern about enforcement had reduced participation in communal religious life, including worship and shared meals.
The court concluded that a policy can substantially burden religious exercise even when it does not directly ban worship or impose a financial penalty. At the preliminary-injunction stage, the judges found that the threat of enforcement could reduce communal worship and impede ministries that the organizations regard as religious obligations.
A separate surveillance question in the Midwest
Separately, court filings reported by The Associated Press and Religion News Service describe a DHS surveillance operation involving five churches in Minnesota and Michigan during an investigation of groups opposing immigration enforcement.
According to the filings and the reports, undercover agents attended meetings in or near churches, monitored activist activity and collected other information. The records described by Religion News Service include alleged activity at University Baptist Church in Minneapolis, First Universalist in Minneapolis, St. John the Evangelist in St. Paul and two churches affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Faith organizations and attorneys have raised allegations that some activity may have conflicted with other court orders, including orders concerning warrantless investigations at churches. Those allegations remain unresolved and should not be treated as an established violation, contempt finding or unlawful-surveillance ruling unless a court makes such a determination.
For congregations and immigrant ministries, the practical message from the Fourth Circuit ruling is limited but significant: At the plaintiff-affiliated worship sites covered by the case, DHS must generally follow the older approval, avoidance and minimization rules. A valid administrative or judicial warrant or a qualifying emergency can still permit action. Other religious institutions would need separate legal relief to obtain comparable protection.
Sources
- Fourth Circuit opinion in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. DHS
- Reuters report on the August 18 ruling
- Associated Press report on Midwest surveillance filings
- Religion News Service report on church surveillance claims
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.