In a closely watched ruling that could reshape the relationship between religious sanctuaries and immigration enforcement, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has declined to block the Trump administration's controversial policy permitting immigration agents to operate in and around houses of worship.
The decision came Friday from U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who denied a request for a preliminary injunction sought by over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious organizations. The plaintiffs argued that the policy—revoked in 2021 and reinstated on January 20, 2025—threatens the free exercise of religion and violates long-standing protections under both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
At issue is the administration's reversal of a decades-old Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that designated “sensitive locations,” including churches, synagogues, and other religious sites, as off-limits for immigration enforcement actions without prior supervisory approval. Under the new directive, immigration agents are authorized to conduct enforcement operations at such locations using their “discretion” and “common sense,” with no requirement for higher-level sign-off.
Despite significant public outcry and reports of plummeting attendance in immigrant-led congregations, Judge Friedrich ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing—the legal threshold needed to bring the case. In her opinion, she noted that the evidence presented did not show that religious institutions were being specifically targeted, nor that the declines in attendance could be directly linked to enforcement actions at churches.
"That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” Friedrich wrote.
The plaintiffs, led by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, cited several troubling incidents—including an arrest at a Georgia church and alleged surveillance of faith-based food distribution lines—but the court found these examples insufficient to prove a pattern or policy of religious targeting.
Civil rights advocates warn, however, that the policy's chilling effect on religious participation is already taking hold. “We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” said lead counsel Kelsi Corkran.
Friday's ruling is the latest in a series of legal battles arising from the Trump administration's renewed immigration enforcement agenda. Just one day earlier, courts issued decisions on other components of this crackdown, including a requirement for undocumented immigrants to register with the federal government and a Supreme Court order directing the return of a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Importantly, the plaintiffs in the house-of-worship case are not out of legal options. While Judge Friedrich's ruling denied immediate relief, the broader lawsuit remains active, and additional evidence may still be presented as the case moves forward.
At Saluja Law, we continue to monitor these developments closely. Immigration enforcement actions near schools, churches, and community centers have far-reaching consequences—not only for individual rights but for the integrity of religious and civic life in America. As always, we are committed to defending due process, religious freedom, and the dignity of every individual under the law.
For questions about how this policy might affect you or your congregation, contact Saluja Law today.