A federal judge ruled Friday that immigration authorities can, for now, continue carrying out enforcement operations at religious institutions, despite ongoing legal challenges from a coalition of faith-based groups.
The decision came from a judge in Washington, D.C., who denied a request from over two dozen Christian and Jewish organizations seeking to temporarily block a new federal policy. The groups had argued the policy undermines religious freedom and discourages worship attendance, particularly within immigrant communities.
In her ruling, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to proceed with the injunction. She pointed out that only a small number of enforcement actions had taken place near religious facilities, and there was no conclusive evidence that churches, synagogues, or other worship spaces were being deliberately targeted.
“The current record doesn’t demonstrate that houses of worship are being singled out,” the judge wrote, adding that the plaintiffs failed to directly link declining attendance to this specific policy. Instead, she suggested that fears among immigrant congregants were likely due to broader immigration enforcement efforts, not necessarily actions inside places of worship.
Attorneys for the faith groups said they are reviewing the ruling and weighing next steps. Their lead counsel expressed concern that the policy threatens fundamental freedoms protected under the Constitution and federal law. “We remain deeply troubled by the implications of this directive and committed to safeguarding core religious liberties,” said the attorney, who leads litigation strategy at a nonprofit constitutional advocacy institute.
The religious coalitions argue the revised policy introduced on the first day of the current administration abandons long-standing federal practice of avoiding enforcement in “sensitive locations,” such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals. Previously, agents needed higher-level approval to conduct operations in such areas. Under the new approach, field officers are permitted to act at their own discretion.
While the court acknowledged isolated incidents such as a reported arrest at a church in Georgia and surveillance near a church daycare it found these insufficient to establish a systemic problem or justify emergency relief.
Elsewhere, legal battles continue over the broader rollback of “sensitive locations” protections. In one case, a judge in Maryland temporarily blocked enforcement actions targeting certain faith communities. A separate court in Colorado, however, upheld the administration’s ability to reverse earlier restrictions at public schools.
The decision in Washington underscores the legal challenges facing those opposing the administration’s expansive immigration agenda. While this ruling marks a temporary setback for the plaintiffs, their case will continue to move through the courts.
Meanwhile, related immigration policies are being tested in multiple jurisdictions. Just a day before this ruling, a different federal judge upheld the administration’s authority to require undocumented immigrants to register with the government. That same day, the Supreme Court ordered the administration to assist in returning a man who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador.
For more political updates, visit DC Brief.
