A federal judge in Maryland has blocked the Trump administration’s policy allowing immigration arrests in certain places of worship. On February 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a preliminary injunction, stating the policy could infringe upon religious freedoms.
The ruling temporarily halts enforcement actions inside Quaker, Cooperative Baptist, and Sikh sanctuaries. The case highlights ongoing legal battles over immigration enforcement and religious rights in the United States.
The lawsuit emerged after President Trump revoked a 2021 directive that restricted immigration enforcement in sensitive locations. Plaintiffs argued that the policy discouraged attendance at services and created fear among both undocumented and legal residents.
They claimed that some members had stopped participating in religious ceremonies out of concern for potential arrests. The fear of enforcement, they said, weakened their ability to worship freely and gather as a community.
Judge Chuang noted that the presence of armed officers inside places of worship could interfere with the congregants’ ability to practice their faith. “The Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom without government interference,” he wrote in his ruling.
He pointed out that the government had failed to provide evidence that religious spaces were being used to shield criminals. The ruling applies specifically to the plaintiffs’ sanctuaries but could influence future cases involving religious institutions.
The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy, stating it was necessary to prevent undocumented individuals from using places of worship to avoid arrest. Officials argued that excluding religious sites from enforcement zones could create loopholes in immigration law.
They maintained that law enforcement must have the ability to act wherever there is reasonable cause. The department insisted that the policy was aimed at enforcing immigration laws, not restricting religious freedoms.
Lawyers representing the religious groups welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory for religious freedom. “People should not have to choose between their faith and their safety,” said an attorney for the plaintiffs.
They argued that the policy violated constitutional rights and discouraged religious participation, particularly for immigrant communities. The legal team emphasized that religious spaces have historically provided refuge to vulnerable individuals, including migrants.
The Trump administration has consistently pursued stricter immigration enforcement policies, arguing that sanctuary protections hinder law enforcement efforts. Officials contend that limiting where enforcement can take place allows undocumented individuals to avoid consequences.
The administration has already taken steps to increase deportations and expand immigration detention facilities. This case is part of a broader push to remove protections for undocumented individuals in certain locations.
The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decision, which could lead to a broader legal battle over religious and immigration laws. Higher courts, including the Supreme Court, may ultimately decide whether religious institutions can be excluded from immigration enforcement actions.
If the injunction is overturned, arrests could resume in places of worship nationwide. The case will likely set a precedent for future disputes over the balance between law enforcement and religious protections.
Religious leaders involved in the lawsuit said they would continue offering assistance to undocumented individuals despite the legal challenges. Many congregations provide shelter, legal aid, and food to migrants, regardless of their immigration status.
“Our faith calls us to support those in need,” said a Quaker pastor, reaffirming their commitment to humanitarian work. They argue that religious doctrine compels them to help all individuals, regardless of their legal circumstances.
Advocacy groups are calling on Congress to pass legislation that would permanently prevent immigration arrests inside places of worship. They argue that a long-term legal solution is needed to protect religious institutions from future policy changes.
Without congressional action, similar policies could be reinstated under future administrations. The case underscores the importance of legislative solutions to address conflicts between immigration enforcement and religious protections.
The ruling does not prevent immigration arrests outside religious sites, meaning enforcement operations will continue in other locations. Officials have not indicated whether they will introduce new policies in response to the court decision.
For now, Quakers, Cooperative Baptists, and Sikhs can hold services without fear of immigration enforcement within their sanctuaries. The case remains under review as both sides prepare for further legal action.
