Appeals court keeps worship-site immigration safeguards in place
A federal appeals court has kept in place a preliminary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to follow limits on immigration-enforcement actions at certain houses of worship. A separate court filing now asks whether undercover surveillance inside a Minneapolis church violated a similar order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its published decision August 18, 2026, in a case brought by Quaker meetings, Sikh Temple Sacramento and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The ruling affirmed protections for the plaintiffs’ designated worship locations while the underlying lawsuit continues.
What the Fourth Circuit decided
The court held that the religious organizations had standing to challenge DHS policy changes and were likely to succeed on their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The court said the 2025 DHS policy substantially burdened the plaintiffs’ religious exercise by contributing to reduced attendance and making immigrant-focused ministries more difficult to carry out.
The dispute centers on a January 2025 DHS policy that rescinded earlier guidance governing immigration enforcement in or near sensitive locations, including houses of worship. The 2025 policy largely left decisions to officers’ discretion and common sense rather than retaining the prior safeguards.
Under the preliminary injunction, DHS must follow relevant protections from its 2021 policy at the plaintiffs’ designated worship sites. Those protections generally call for advance approval before an enforcement action in or near a protected area unless exigent circumstances exist. The policy also directs officers to use nonpublic locations and methods that minimize the risk of discouraging access to worship and other religious activities.
The relief is limited. It does not apply nationwide or automatically cover every church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other religious institution. It also does not create a general requirement that agents obtain judicial warrants before taking immigration-enforcement action. The injunction incorporates exceptions for certain warrant-authorized actions and for exigent circumstances, such as an imminent threat to life or a serious risk that evidence will be destroyed.
Separate contempt motion focuses on Minneapolis church
The appellate ruling was followed by a separate filing on August 20 in federal court in Massachusetts. In New England Synod v. DHS, religious plaintiffs asked the court to issue an order to show cause and begin a contempt proceeding based on surveillance described in government investigative reports.
The motion alleges that an undercover ICE agent entered University Baptist Church in Minneapolis on May 28, 2026, joined a class in the church’s gymnasium, and spent about two hours observing, speaking with and recording attendees. The filing also describes surveillance outside the church on April 12, April 19 and June 11, including agents watching people enter and leave and collecting vehicle-plate information near the building.
Those allegations come from the plaintiffs’ motion and supporting records; they are not findings that DHS violated the order. The filing says University Baptist Church had been designated as a protected location under the Massachusetts court’s preliminary injunction.
DHS disputes the plaintiffs’ characterization of the activity. According to reporting by The Associated Press and Religion News Service, the government’s position is that the investigation concerned alleged violations of Title 18, the federal criminal code, rather than immigration enforcement. That distinction is central to the dispute because the court order regulates immigration-enforcement actions in or near protected areas.
The Fourth Circuit appeal and the Minneapolis contempt proceeding are related through their focus on sensitive-location protections, but they are separate cases. The Fourth Circuit did not decide whether the Minneapolis surveillance violated the Massachusetts injunction.
What happens next
No ruling on the August 20 contempt request was identified in the court materials reviewed for this article. The next major development will be a response from the Massachusetts federal court and any explanation from DHS about how it interpreted and applied the order.
For the plaintiffs covered by the Fourth Circuit injunction, DHS must continue following the 2021 safeguards at their designated worship sites. Other faith institutions do not automatically receive the same protection, although the ruling may influence continuing litigation over how federal enforcement affects congregations that provide immigrant services, classes, food assistance or other ministries.
For readers and faith institutions, the practical point is narrow but important: the ruling preserves advance-review and location-based safeguards for specified plaintiffs, but it does not establish a nationwide warrant requirement or bar all federal investigations at houses of worship. The Minneapolis dispute will turn in part on whether the conduct described in the filing qualifies as an immigration-enforcement action covered by the Massachusetts order.
Sources
- Published Fourth Circuit opinion in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. DHS
- August 20 plaintiffs' motion in New England Synod v. DHS
- Associated Press report on the Minnesota surveillance operation
- Religion News Service report on the contempt motion
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.