Churches challenge Homeland Security surveillance at Minneapolis church

A federal judge is weighing whether Homeland Security surveillance inside a Minneapolis church violated a preliminary injunction protecting certain religious facilities, with no ruling issued after a September 4 hearing.

The dispute centers on University Baptist Church in Minneapolis and a pending contempt motion brought by religious organizations. The groups allege that federal agents conducted surveillance connected to immigration-enforcement activity in ways barred by a February 13 preliminary injunction. The government says the operation was a criminal investigation into alleged threats against federal officers, not immigration enforcement.

What happened at University Baptist Church

Court records describe four Homeland Security surveillance operations at University Baptist Church. One involved an undercover agent inside the church gymnasium during a May 28, 2026, martial arts class, according to records made public in a separate criminal case.

The religious plaintiffs argue that the surveillance was connected to investigations of anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement activism and therefore fell within conduct restricted by the injunction. They are asking the court to consider contempt-related relief, require disclosures about the operations and issue instructions governing how federal agents may operate around covered religious facilities.

Those allegations have not been established as a final court finding. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV heard arguments on September 4, and no ruling had been issued as of September 14.

What the February injunction says

The preliminary injunction in New England Synod v. Department of Homeland Security restricts specified warrantless immigration-enforcement actions inside qualifying churches and certain adjacent religious facilities associated with the plaintiffs who established standing in the case. The order also addresses activity near church entrances.

The order is not a nationwide ban on every law-enforcement action at a house of worship. Its restrictions include exceptions identified in the court record, such as exigent circumstances and actions supported by administrative or judicial warrants. The order also does not decide the ultimate merits of the religious groups’ claims.

The pending dispute turns in part on how to classify the Minneapolis surveillance. The faith groups argue that the operation functioned, at least in part, as an investigation supporting immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has argued that agents were investigating alleged plans to commit violence against federal officers and were not carrying out an immigration raid or arrest operation.

How the evidence became public

Details about the surveillance surfaced through a separate federal criminal case involving 15 members and associates of Direct Action Minnesota. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota says the defendants face charges including conspiracy to impede a federal officer, interstate threats, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, assaults on federal officers and destruction of government property.

The indictment contains allegations, not proof of guilt, and the defendants are presumed innocent. The criminal case and the church-injunction dispute are separate proceedings, although materials from the criminal investigation prompted the religious groups’ challenge.

Why faith institutions are watching

The ruling could clarify how the injunction applies when churches host immigrant-support work, protest meetings, trainings or other community events that overlap with federal investigations.

For faith institutions, the immediate question is whether surveillance inside a covered church can be treated as prohibited immigration-enforcement activity when the government says its purpose was criminal investigation and officer protection. The decision may also guide future disputes over undercover operations, subpoenas, surveillance and access to religious facilities.

Until the judge rules, the competing accounts remain unresolved. Religious organizations are seeking enforcement of the preliminary injunction, while the government is defending the surveillance as an investigation outside the order’s immigration-enforcement restrictions.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.