Judge Blocks Immigration Raids at Quaker, Sikh, Baptist Sites \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily blocked immigration agents from conducting enforcement operations at religious sites for Quaker, Baptist, and Sikh groups, ruling that the Trump administration’s new policy may violate religious freedom. The policy, which removed prior restrictions on enforcement at houses of worship, was challenged by faith organizations fearing it would deter immigrants from attending services. The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs, but similar lawsuits are pending, with religious leaders arguing the policy threatens constitutional rights.
Judge Blocks Immigration Raids at Religious Sites: Quick Looks
- Federal Judge Issues Injunction: A Maryland judge temporarily blocked immigration enforcement at Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist houses of worship, citing religious freedom concerns.
- Trump Administration Policy Challenged: The lawsuit argues that removing DHS restrictions on raids in religious spaces discourages immigrants from attending services.
- Government Defends Policy: Justice Department attorneys claim no religious groups have been targeted, arguing the lawsuit is based on speculation, not actual harm.
- Religious Leaders Speak Out: Faith-based groups say the policy violates the First Amendment, with congregations fearful of attending services.
- More Lawsuits Pending: Over two dozen Christian and Jewish organizations have filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., challenging the same DHS rule.
- Court Battle Continues: The Trump administration may appeal, but for now, Quaker meetings, Baptist churches, and Sikh temples covered under the ruling remain protected from enforcement operations.
- What’s Next? If the lawsuit succeeds, it could reinstate nationwide protections for religious institutions, preventing immigration raids in houses of worship.
Deep Look
A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from conducting immigration enforcement operations at religious sites tied to Quaker, Baptist, and Sikh communities. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chang, represents a significant legal challenge to the Trump administration’s push to expand immigration enforcement nationwide.
Judge Chang determined that the policy could infringe on religious freedom, particularly as faith organizations argue that fear of potential raids has already discouraged immigrants from attending services. The decision does not apply nationwide but grants temporary relief to the religious groups involved in the lawsuit while the case proceeds.
This case has far-reaching implications as more faith-based organizations prepare to challenge the Trump administration’s removal of long-standing restrictions on immigration enforcement in houses of worship.
The Trump Administration’s Policy Change on Immigration Raids
For more than 30 years, U.S. immigration officials operated under guidelines that classified religious institutions as “sensitive locations”, meaning that arrests or enforcement actions required supervisor approval and were strongly discouraged unless there was an imminent security threat.
However, in January 2025, the Trump administration rescinded these protections, arguing that:
- Immigration agents should have greater flexibility in deciding where to conduct operations.
- Requiring supervisor approval slows down enforcement efforts.
- Faith-based institutions should not provide blanket immunity from the law.
The new directive allowed immigration agents to operate in churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples without obtaining prior approval, relying instead on their discretion and “common sense”.
This policy shift, in line with Trump’s campaign promise to carry out mass deportations, drew immediate backlash from religious leaders across the country.
Why Did Religious Groups Sue?
A coalition of Quaker meetings across Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, along with a Georgia-based Baptist church network and a Sikh temple in California, filed a lawsuit against DHS on January 27, 2025, just days after the policy was announced.
The plaintiffs argued that the policy puts immigrant congregants at risk and creates a chilling effect on religious participation.
“It’s a fear that people are experiencing across the country,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Girard during a February hearing.
He added that the uncertainty over whether immigration agents might appear at a service has already caused a decline in attendance at religious gatherings.
“People are not showing up, and the plaintiffs are suffering as a result.”
The lawsuit asserts that the new policy violates the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections, forcing houses of worship to become potential sites of government enforcement actions rather than safe spaces for spiritual refuge.
The Federal Court’s Ruling
In his preliminary injunction, Judge Chang ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to lift enforcement restrictions could violate the First Amendment and religious organizations should not be forced to choose between practicing their faith and protecting their congregants from immigration raids.
The ruling temporarily blocks DHS from conducting immigration enforcement operations at the plaintiffs’ religious sites, while the case proceeds.
While not a nationwide ruling, the decision sets an important legal precedent and signals that the courts may be skeptical of DHS’s justification for removing protections.
The Government’s Defense: No Targeting of Religious Groups
The Trump administration has defended its policy change, arguing that:
- Immigration enforcement in houses of worship has always been permitted, and the only change is that supervisor approval is no longer required.
- No religious institutions have been specifically targeted, meaning that the lawsuit is based on speculation, not actual harm.
- The lawsuit improperly asks the courts to interfere with executive branch law enforcement decisions.
“Plaintiffs have provided no evidence indicating that any of their religious organizations have been targeted,” argued Justice Department attorney Kristina Wolfe, who represented DHS in court.
The government contends that law enforcement discretion is crucial in immigration cases, and that the lawsuit could set a precedent limiting where and how enforcement actions can be carried out.
Broader Faith-Based Opposition to the Policy
The lawsuit in Maryland is not the only legal challenge to Trump’s policy.
More than two dozen Christian and Jewish organizations representing millions of Americans have filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., making similar claims about religious freedom violations.
Meanwhile, the Democracy Forward Foundation, which represents the Maryland plaintiffs, has urged Judge Chang to expand the ruling nationwide, arguing:
“DHS’s new policy gives it the authority to enter any house of worship across the country, no matter its religious beliefs.”
What Happens Next?
- The Trump administration may appeal the ruling, seeking to reinstate the policy for all religious institutions.
- Other religious groups may seek similar court orders to block immigration enforcement at their places of worship.
- If the case proceeds, faith-based organizations could win a broader ruling reaffirming religious institutions as “sensitive locations” off-limits for immigration raids.
- Congress may step in, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle potentially weighing legislation to clarify DHS’s authority on religious site enforcement.
For now, Quaker meetings, Baptist churches, and Sikh temples covered under this ruling will remain protected from immigration enforcement operations—at least until the next phase of the lawsuit unfolds.
As the legal battle continues, the case could become a key test of how far Trump’s immigration policies can go before infringing on religious freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.