Prosecutors Urge Court to Ban Immigration Raids at Houses of Worship

(UNITED STATES) — A new filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 7, 2026, asks the court to curb immigration raids at houses of worship, escalating a legal fight that began after DHS ended its “Protected Areas” limits on enforcement effective January 20, 2025.

The latest development is an amicus brief submitted by Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP). The brief urges the Fourth Circuit to bar or sharply limit immigration enforcement actions in or around religious institutions, arguing such operations undermine public safety and community trust. The filing is part of ongoing appellate litigation arising from DHS’s 2025 policy change.

What changed, and when it took effect

DHS’s enforcement posture shifted on January 20, 2025, when Acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a memorandum rescinding the October 27, 2021 “Protected Areas” guidance. The 2021 policy generally discouraged enforcement actions at sensitive sites, including churches, schools, and health care facilities, absent exigent circumstances.

Under the rescission, DHS moved away from location-based “bright line” limits and returned decisions to officer discretion, described by DHS as relying on “common sense.” Practically, this meant ICE and CBP agents could initiate certain operations near sensitive sites without the structured internal constraints that previously applied.

The legal theory: RFRA and constitutional concerns

Challenges to the 2025 rescission commonly rely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which can restrict federal action that substantially burdens religious exercise unless the government meets a demanding justification.

Plaintiffs and supporting amici also point to First Amendment principles, including associational and religious-exercise concerns, though RFRA often provides the more direct statutory path.

The new amicus brief argues that immigration raids near houses of worship chill religious exercise. It also contends the chill extends beyond undocumented congregants to:

• Lawful permanent residents
• Asylum applicants
• U.S. citizens who fear mistaken detention

Conflicting district court rulings feeding the appeal

Two early rulings illustrate why the issue is now pressing in the appellate courts:

1. In February 2025, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang (Maryland) issued a preliminary injunction protecting certain faith communities, including Quakers, Cooperative Baptists, and Sikhs, after finding they were likely to succeed on RFRA-related claims.
2. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich (Washington, D.C.) declined to impose a nationwide ban, siding with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws without a categorical national restriction.

Those differing outcomes created a patchwork of rulings. The Fourth Circuit’s eventual approach could influence litigation strategy across the country, even outside the circuit.

Who is affected

The policy shift and the litigation affect several groups:

• Immigrants who attend or work at houses of worship, including undocumented individuals, lawful permanent residents, and those with pending benefits.
• Religious institutions, including churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and affiliated ministries such as food pantries.
• Mixed-status families, where U.S.-citizen children and noncitizen parents attend services together.
• Asylum seekers and other humanitarian applicants, whose attendance may be tied to community support and documentation for relief.

Although immigration arrests are typically governed by federal statutes and the Fourth Amendment, operational decisions also intersect with EOIR proceedings once a person is placed in removal. Removal charges often arise under INA § 237 (deportability) or INA § 212 (inadmissibility), depending on the person’s posture. Detention authority frequently ties to INA § 236 and INA § 241.

Warning: Even if a person has lawful status, officer error can occur. The amicus brief cites allegations of wrongful detentions of U.S. citizens during enforcement actions since January 2025.

Practical impact: what communities are reporting

Faith leaders have described “double-digit percentage” declines in attendance in some congregations following reports of surveillance and arrests near worship sites. The brief also describes alleged surveillance practices, such as photographing attendees near faith-based services or charitable programs.

For individuals in removal proceedings, these disruptions can have real downstream effects:

• Missing community support may affect access to counsel, housing, and evidence collection.
• For some forms of relief, corroborating documents and stable community ties matter.

Examples reported in litigation records include:

• People skipping worship services due to fear of being questioned.
• Reduced attendance at food pantries run by religious groups.
• Hesitation to report crimes or cooperate with local police, out of fear that contact with government systems could lead to immigration attention.

What the Fourth Circuit can do, and what it cannot

The Fourth Circuit has several viable actions:

• Affirm, narrow, or expand injunctive relief arising from cases in its jurisdiction.
• Address whether plaintiffs have standing, whether RFRA applies as asserted, and what remedies are available.

Limitations and caveats:

• An appellate ruling would not automatically create a nationwide rule unless the remedy and posture support it.
• Different circuits may reach different conclusions, potentially creating a split that the Supreme Court could be asked to resolve.

Deadline / Watch item: If the Fourth Circuit schedules argument, affected institutions should track briefing and hearing dates closely. Rapid rulings sometimes follow emergency motions.

Transition rules and “grandfathering”

There is no formal “grandfather” provision for enforcement discretion. The rescission took effect when issued in January 2025.

That said, court-ordered injunctions can function like carve-outs for specific plaintiffs or locations, depending on the order’s wording and coverage.

Warning: Do not assume that an injunction for one denomination or plaintiff group automatically protects other congregations, even nearby.

Recommended actions and timeline

In the near term, religious institutions and congregants should plan around uncertainty until appellate courts provide clearer boundaries.

Practical steps that may help:

• Consult counsel about protocols for responding to agent requests, warrants, and subpoenas. Fourth Amendment rules often turn on the document presented.
• Train staff and volunteers on who can speak for the institution and where private areas begin.
• Encourage individuals in proceedings to speak with their attorney before changing routines that affect evidence gathering or court attendance.
• Monitor official updates from DHS and EOIR, especially if local enforcement priorities shift.

Action item (next 30–90 days):

1. If your congregation has experienced surveillance or enforcement activity, document dates, locations, and contacts.
2. Share that documentation with counsel; it may be relevant in RFRA or constitutional litigation.

For official information, readers can consult EOIR at https://www.justice.gov/eoir and USCIS announcements at https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom.

Resources

• AILA Lawyer Referral (Note: AILA’s own site is non-governmental; this link leads to EOIR resources for finding immigration counsel)

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.