WASHINGTON, USA — A federal judge has temporarily blocked immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship affiliated with Quakers, Baptists, and Sikhs, ruling that the Trump administration’s policy may violate religious freedoms.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chang issued a limited injunction on Monday, February 24, 2025, suspending enforcement of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directive for the plaintiffs in the case while a broader lawsuit proceeds.
The ruling comes amid growing fears of mass deportations under Trump’s latest immigration policies.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit challenges one of the Trump administration’s recent policy reversals, which rescinded protections for sensitive locations such as churches, schools, and hospitals—places that were previously considered safe havens for undocumented immigrants under Biden-era policies.
Since the rollback of those protections, immigrant communities have feared increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, particularly in places of worship that have historically sheltered migrants.
A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found that while 83% of Americans support deporting migrants convicted of violent crimes, there is less public consensus on broader mass deportation policies that affect religious and humanitarian spaces.
What the Lawsuit Argues
The plaintiffs—including five Quaker congregations across Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—argue that the new DHS directive undermines 30 years of precedent protecting houses of worship from immigration enforcement operations.
Attorneys representing the faith groups contend that the policy’s changes—allowing ICE agents to conduct raids at religious institutions without supervisor approval—infringe on their First Amendment rights and their ability to freely practice their faith by offering refuge to undocumented immigrants.
“DHS’s new policy gives it the authority to enter any house of worship across the country, no matter its religious beliefs,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in court filings.
Judge’s Ruling: A Narrow Victory for Religious Groups
Judge Chang ruled that immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship tied to the plaintiffs should be suspended until the lawsuit is fully resolved.
However, he declined to impose a nationwide ban on the policy, despite requests from faith-based groups.
“Many immigrants are afraid to attend religious services while the government enforces the new rule,” plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in court.
Government lawyers, however, insisted that no direct evidence had been provided showing that religious organizations had been targeted or affected by ICE actions.
The Trump administration defended the policy change, arguing that ICE agents have historically been permitted to operate in sensitive locations, with the only change being the removal of the requirement for supervisor approval.
Religious Leaders React
Faith leaders celebrated the ruling as an important, though partial, victory for religious liberty and immigrant rights.
Rev. Dr. Paul Baxley, head of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, called the decision a “powerful validation” of faith communities’ roles in supporting immigrants and refugees.
“For decades, our congregations have faithfully engaged in ministry among immigrants and refugees, offering a bold and courageous witness to the remarkable and relentless love of Christ,” Baxley said.
Christie Duncan-Tessmer, general secretary of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, said the ruling “returns some of us to safely holding open the doors to houses of worship to all seekers.”
However, immigrant advocates warned that the decision does not go far enough, as it only applies to a limited group of faith communities and does not prevent ICE from targeting other religious institutions.
What Happens Next?
While this ruling offers temporary relief for the plaintiffs, legal experts expect broader legal battles over Trump’s immigration policies to continue in the coming months.
The White House is already facing additional lawsuits over its decisions to expand mass deportations, curb refugee and asylum entries, and evoke protections for immigrants who entered legally under previous policies
Further court hearings and appeals are expected, with both sides preparing for long-term legal battles over immigration enforcement in faith-based and humanitarian spaces.
