Key Takeaways
• DHS policy change in 2025 allows ICE detentions inside places of worship without prior approval.
• Lawsuits claim new rules violate First Amendment and RFRA protections for religious freedom.
• Federal court issued injunction halting ICE operations in some worship sites; broader lawsuits are ongoing.
A string of high-profile lawsuits has put the spotlight on immigration policy inside houses of worship in the United States 🇺🇸. At the center of these legal battles is a sweeping policy change by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2025. For years, immigration enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) avoided taking action—such as detentions and arrests—in places considered “sensitive.” These included churches, synagogues, mosques, and other sites where people gather to practice their faith. Immigrant communities, faith leaders, and legal advocates are now raising the alarm, saying the new policy not only disrupts religious gatherings but may also break the law.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom sits at the heart of these complaints. Plaintiffs argue that ICE officers conducting immigration detentions and arrests inside places of worship—without any emergency or supervisor-required reason—directly interferes with their right to practice religion. The lawsuits also claim this change goes against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a U.S. law meant to protect people from government actions that place too heavy a burden on religious practices.
The Policy Shift: More Enforcement in Sacred Places
For decades, DHS guidelines kept enforcement operations away from a list of sensitive places. The idea was simple: everyone, including undocumented immigrants, should feel safe attending worship, sending their children to school, or seeking medical help. Supervisors at ICE would only approve operations at these locations in the most urgent cases. This approach balanced the government’s role in enforcing immigration law with respect for basic rights, such as the free exercise of religion—a right clearly protected by the First Amendment.
But in early 2025, DHS announced a major change. The department rolled back these restrictions, allowing ICE agents more power to decide, on their own, when to take enforcement action inside sensitive locations—including houses of worship—without needing advance approval or special circumstances. Now, ICE officers can enter a church or mosque at almost any time, looking for people to detain.
Faith leaders and immigrant communities quickly noticed the effects. Across the country, pastors, rabbis, and imams have reported that attendance at worship services among immigrant members has dropped. Many who previously participated in church lunches, prayer groups, or other ministries now feel too fearful to attend. Church-based programs that serve the poor, the sick, or those seeking shelter have seen fewer people asking for help. For some, the promise that “all are welcome” in their place of worship has turned into a source of anxiety.
Legal Action: Who Is Suing, and Why?
In response to these changes, several lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. A main group representing more than two dozen Christian and Jewish churches kicked off the legal fight in February 2025 with a case called Mennonite Church USA et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al.. They assert that their right to gather freely—to worship, to help those in need, and to speak about their faith—is under threat. This lawsuit argues that by making people afraid to enter houses of worship, the new DHS policy breaks both the First Amendment and the RFRA. The latter requires the government to have an extremely strong reason before taking any action that seriously interferes with religious activities.
Lawyers in the coalition say this fear of raids not only keeps people away from services but also forces faith leaders to hold back on outreach to people who may need spiritual or financial support. In effect, the chilling effect—the dampening of normal activity out of fear—has set in.
Not long after, additional lawsuits followed. Churches and labor groups in Oregon filed a case on April 28, 2025, targeting the same DHS policy. Their argument: rescinding “sensitive location” protections is not just bad policy, it goes directly against the First Amendment’s core promise of free speech and religious liberty. According to their court filings, “sacred spaces have become sources of extreme anxiety rather than places of refuge.” These words highlight how the threat of enforcement has shifted the true meaning of such spaces for immigrant congregants.
A third major development came from a separate challenge by a group of Quaker meetings and other religious organizations. In this case, a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to ICE operations within their specific houses of worship. The court explained that the abrupt policy change clashed deeply with expectations for religious freedom built up over many years, and that these expectations enjoy strong protection under U.S. law.
The Legal Questions: Rights vs. Enforcement
At the heart of all these challenges is a simple but weighty question: Does enforcement activity like detentions or arrests in a church—or any house of worship—break the law?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says Congress can’t make laws that block people from practicing their religion. Even more, it protects the right to gather together for worship or to speak and act in ways central to one’s faith. When ICE officers show up during a service, or when people fear that might happen, many just stay away.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue this is not just a personal setback for individual worshippers. They believe it chills—meaning it puts a stop to—whole communities who want to live out their traditions. From a legal view, this sort of “chilling effect” is a warning sign that a government action might violate the First Amendment or broader protections under RFRA.
Lawyers representing religious groups also point out that Supreme Court cases have long protected the freedom of association—the right for people to gather as a group in support of their beliefs. If communities feel unsafe gathering, they argue, then the government has crossed a dangerous line.
RFRA takes things even further, saying the government can only burden religious exercise if it meets a very high standard. It has to prove the action is the least restrictive way to further a very important goal. Plaintiffs say DHS has not done enough to meet this standard and instead has made it much harder for people to follow their faith.
The Real-World Impact: Churches, Ministries, and Immigrants
Since the policy change, the effects have been both deep and visible. Take, for instance, a congregation that once welcomed dozens of undocumented immigrants each week. Attendance has dropped as the fear of being found by ICE outweighs the desire for community or spiritual support. Meanwhile, food pantries operated by churches are seeing fewer people, despite high levels of need.
Faith leaders report that members of their flock now avoid church altogether or keep their involvement to a bare minimum. Instead of finding fellowship, people worry about being separated from their families. Even non-religious activities inside places of worship—like English classes or health clinics—are seeing declines in attendance.
Religious organizations and their lawyers argue that these outcomes directly contradict the intended function of houses of worship: as spaces of comfort, peace, and help for all. They see the government’s new approach as treating sacred space as no different from any other building, without recognizing the special importance that the Constitution and U.S. history attach to these places.
Federal Courts Respond: Early Injunctions and Next Steps
While most of these cases are still ongoing, at least one federal judge has taken decisive action. For groups like Quaker meetings and a few others, courts have granted what’s called an “injunction”—a court order stopping ICE from entering and conducting enforcement operations in their sites, at least until the lawsuit is resolved. This is a temporary measure, and for now applies only to those specific plaintiffs.
The legal reasoning behind the injunction is simple: you can’t change basic expectations for First Amendment protection without a very good reason. Making a sudden policy change that reaches into sacred spaces—without clear justification—risks violating basic constitutional rights.
However, the broader lawsuits continue. Judges in other courts are still weighing arguments that could lead to a national rule restoring protections at places like churches, mosques, and synagogues.
What’s at Stake: More Than Policy
As lawsuits move through the courts, the debate has deepened. Is the “sensitive locations” policy just a guideline, or does the Constitution demand stronger protections for places of worship? Religious and civil rights groups argue it’s about more than where you do immigration enforcement—it’s about the meaning of liberty, community, and trust.
On one side, ICE and DHS leaders say the new policy gives agents flexibility to enforce the law wherever they must, especially if someone poses a risk or has a serious criminal record. They argue that all locations must remain open to law enforcement when urgent needs arise.
On the other side, faith groups and their legal teams say the government’s actions betray a deep tradition in American law and life: that certain places—especially churches and synagogues—have always been seen as refuges from government power. They warn that policy changes affecting Immigration Detentions in these locations risk turning places of hope into places of fear.
The impact stretches beyond immigrants themselves. American society depends on vibrant, welcoming congregations that serve anyone in need. Policies that cause people to hide or abandon these havens strike at the core of religious and civic life.
Looking Forward: Pending Lawsuits and National Outcomes
The coming months are likely to determine whether courts will force DHS to bring back or even lock in new protections for houses of worship. With multiple lawsuits asking for both injunctions (temporary stops) and permanent changes, legal experts are watching closely.
Faith leaders hope for a clear ruling: that the First Amendment and laws like RFRA make it illegal to conduct regular Immigration Detentions in sacred spaces. Such a decision could restore trust and allow houses of worship to again serve as places of both faith and safety for all.
Still, ICE may push back, saying practical needs sometimes outweigh these concerns. The balance of rights and government action is a tightrope that courts have walked for years.
If you want to review current policy or your own rights, the official DHS Sensitive Locations FAQ is a good starting point. This page explains how ICE views its role at places like churches, schools, and hospitals.
Summary: Upholding Rights Amid Policy Changes
The central fight here is about much more than a single policy—it goes to the heart of American laws and values. Lawsuits challenging Immigration Detentions inside places of worship claim that religious exercise and free speech must remain as protected now as they have been throughout U.S. history. The First Amendment and RFRA, say plaintiffs, are not just words but real limits on what the government can do, even when enforcing immigration laws.
As courts make their decisions, many churches, synagogues, and other faith groups continue to support immigrants—sometimes at personal and institutional risk. Their willingness to stand up for what they believe has brought nationwide attention to this issue. While the outcome is not yet decided, it is clear that faith communities will keep fighting for the right to welcome and serve all who come through their doors.
For ongoing updates, resources, and in-depth analysis on how these lawsuits may affect your community, organizations like VisaVerge.com remain an essential source. In the meantime, America will keep debating where—and how—the line between immigration enforcement and basic rights should be drawn, especially inside the peaceful walls of its sacred spaces.
Learn Today
First Amendment → A section of the U.S. Constitution that protects freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition against government interference.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) → A U.S. law requiring the government to avoid actions that substantially burden religious exercise unless absolutely necessary.
Sensitive locations → Places like churches, schools, and hospitals where immigration enforcement was previously limited or restricted.
Injunction → A court order requiring a party to cease certain actions, sometimes issued temporarily while a lawsuit is ongoing.
Chilling effect → A situation where people are deterred from exercising their rights due to fear of potential government action.
This Article in a Nutshell
A dramatic policy shift in 2025 now allows ICE to conduct immigration enforcement in churches without high-level approval, alarming faith communities. Lawsuits argue these actions violate the First Amendment and RFRA. Early court orders have temporarily blocked some detentions, but the long-term future of sacred space protections is uncertain.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Mark Carney’s win may reshape immigration policy for Indian students
• South Dakota faces labor shortages as immigration policies tighten
• Federal courts curb Trump’s immigration agenda in first 100 days
• Mark Carney signals balanced approach to immigration in Canada
• Immigration Raids Stir Anxiety Among Workers in Restaurant Industry
