A unanimous federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration’s expanded ICE arrest policy imposed an unjustified burden on the religious exercise of migrant congregants and the faith communities serving them.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court on Tuesday restricted the Trump administration’s ability to carry out warrantless immigration arrests at houses of worship, concluding that the policy violated protections afforded under federal religious freedom law.
The unanimous decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that religious congregations challenging the policy had shown declining attendance after the Department of Homeland Security expanded the circumstances under which Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers could make arrests at churches, temples and mosques, according to The Washington Times.
The court determined that the resulting burden on religious exercise was not adequately justified under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The dispute stems from a DHS directive issued Jan. 21, 2025, shortly after then-acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman rescinded Biden administration guidelines that had treated certain locations, including houses of worship, as protected areas.
Under the new DHS policy, immigration officers were given greater discretion to make arrests at sensitive locations based on their “common sense,” replacing a Biden-era approach that generally discouraged such arrests without approval from ICE headquarters except in urgent circumstances.
“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murders [sic] and rapists — who have illegally come into our country,” a DHS spokesperson said when the policy was announced.
“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”
Religious organizations challenged the policy under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which places a demanding legal burden on the federal government when its actions substantially interfere with religious practice.
The lawsuit was led by Quaker organizations along the Atlantic seaboard and also included the Sikh Temple Sacramento and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
The Trump administration argued that the religious groups did not have legal standing to bring the case.
The appeals court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence that attendance at their congregations had declined following DHS’ policy change.
The ruling does not necessarily foreclose every government argument in favor of immigration enforcement at houses of worship.
The government could potentially attempt to justify the burden imposed by the policy under the legal standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
However, the Justice Department did not raise that defense in the lower court, causing the argument to be waived on appeal.
Judge Steven Agee, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, sharply criticized that omission.
“In short, DHS abdicated its burden of proof at a crucial juncture of the merits analysis,” Agee wrote.
He described the government’s failure to make the argument earlier as an “inexplicable failure.”
The court also limited the scope of its decision.
Agee said the ruling applies specifically to houses of worship and does not extend to every category of location previously treated as sensitive under earlier immigration-enforcement guidance.
The decision also applies only to the plaintiffs involved in the litigation rather than creating a blanket nationwide prohibition covering every religious institution.
ICE agents may still make arrests in houses of worship under certain circumstances.
Agee said enforcement remains permissible when agents possess a warrant or when exigent circumstances justify immediate action.
The decision therefore does not establish an absolute sanctuary from immigration enforcement inside churches, temples or mosques.
Instead, it restricts the application of the administration’s broader warrantless-arrest policy to the religious organizations that successfully challenged it.
The case highlights the legal tension between the Trump administration’s effort to expand immigration enforcement authority and federal protections intended to prevent government actions from substantially burdening religious exercise.
The administration sought to remove restrictions that it argued prevented immigration officers from pursuing suspects in places such as schools and churches.
The religious plaintiffs countered that the policy was discouraging migrants from attending worship services and interfering with their ability to participate fully in religious life.
The Fourth Circuit sided with the congregations on that issue, concluding that they had demonstrated a sufficient burden on their religious activities and that the government had failed to present the necessary justification in the lower court.
Further litigation remains possible, but under Tuesday’s ruling, the challenged ICE policy cannot be applied to the plaintiff houses of worship in the same manner absent circumstances such as a warrant or an urgent enforcement need.
Original article
Comments