A Massachusetts judge issued a preliminary injunction against a 2025 federal policy that allowed immigration agents to conduct warrantless arrests and searches inside houses of worship.
TLDR
A federal judge in Massachusetts has partially blocked a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that removed long-standing restrictions on immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations” like churches. The 2025 policy, which replaced a 2021 memo requiring headquarters approval for such actions, granted agents broad discretion to conduct operations during religious services. The court found that several church organizations had standing to sue due to measurable declines in attendance and participation. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled that the policy likely violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise without being the least restrictive means of enforcement. The injunction prohibits warrantless enforcement inside or within 100 feet of churches for the named plaintiffs who established standing.
Case Info
Case Caption: New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
Date: February 13, 2026
Civil Action No.: 25-40102-FDS
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled that the federal government cannot use unrestricted discretion to conduct immigration raids inside or near churches. The court determined that the 2025 DHS policy likely violates federal law by substantially burdening religious exercise while failing to use the least restrictive means to achieve enforcement goals. This ruling protects specific religious facilities from warrantless arrests and checkpoints while the litigation continues.
This ruling comes after several Christian organizations, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Baptist associations, challenged the January 2025 policy change. The decision highlights a major legal clash between executive branch enforcement priorities and statutory religious protections. While the court found it had the authority to restrain federal agents in other states for the named plaintiffs, its power is strictly curtailed by federal statutes that protect arrests made with administrative warrants.
What are the facts of the New England Synod v. DHS case?
In January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded a 2021 policy that had generally prohibited immigration enforcement at “protected areas” like churches and schools. The 2021 policy required agents to seek high-level approval before taking action in these areas unless exigent circumstances existed. The new 2025 policy replaced these rules with instructions for agents to use “discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense” and allowed lower-level supervisors to make case-by-case determinations.
Plaintiffs, a group of Christian church organizations, sued to stop the policy. They presented evidence that their congregations experienced declines in attendance since the policy took effect. For example, one Lutheran congregation in Milwaukee reported a 50 percent decline in attendance, and a church-run diaper pantry saw participation fall from 300 families to 100.
How did the court rule on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
Judge Saylor found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the government cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it proves the burden furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive way to do so. The court ruled that immigration raids or checkpoints at church entrances “substantially hinder, constrain, and inhibit” individuals from attending religious services.
While acknowledging that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing immigration laws, the court noted that the 2025 policy is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The court pointed to the 2021 policy as a existing, less restrictive alternative that minimized the burden on religion while still allowing for enforcement.
Which plaintiffs were granted standing to sue?
The court conducted a detailed analysis of standing, which requires a showing of concrete injury fairly traceable to the policy. The following groups were found to have standing:
* New England, Greater Milwaukee, Southwest California, Southwest Texas, and Sierra Pacific Synods of the ELCA.
* American Baptist Churches USA.
* Alliance of Baptists.
* Metropolitan Community Churches.
The court found these groups successfully linked decreased attendance and participation in social ministries directly to the 2025 policy. However, several Quaker organizations were denied standing because their declarations focused on “intangible harms” like fear and anxiety, which the court ruled are not concrete injuries under Article III.
What are the specific terms of the preliminary injunction?
The court did not issue a nationwide ban or fully reinstate the 2021 policy. Instead, it issued a specific injunction that:
* Prohibits warrantless enforcement actions, absent exigent circumstances, inside a place of worship or religious education facility.
* Prohibits warrantless enforcement within 100 feet of the entrance to a church.
* Bans the use of checkpoints to knowingly interrogate persons on their way to or from a church.
* Exempts immigration-enforcement actions taken pursuant to an administrative or judicial warrant.
What is the scope of the court’s authority in other jurisdictions?
The court’s authority to issue relief is limited by both standing requirements and federal statutes. Key limitations include:
* Plaintiff-Specific Relief: The injunction applies only to the specific plaintiffs who established standing, rather than being a nationwide order.
* Statutory Restrictions: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin arrests made pursuant to an administrative warrant.
* Facility Specificity: The court required plaintiffs to identify, in writing, the specific properties and areas they contend qualify as protected to ensure the injunction meets the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d).
Analysis
The decision rests on a robust application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. By focusing on RFRA, the court avoided the higher hurdle of proving the government targeted religion specifically, instead finding that a “neutral” policy created a “substantial burden”. The court’s willingness to accept “decreased attendance” as a concrete injury is a significant victory for religious organizations.
However, the ruling has clear weaknesses. The court admitted it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin arrests made with administrative warrants due to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). This means ICE can still conduct operations in churches if they possess a warrant from their own agency. Furthermore, by denying standing to the Quaker plaintiffs, the court signaled that psychological fear is insufficient to stop a government policy. The injunction protects against “street-level” agent discretion, but it is not a total shield for houses of worship against planned, warrant-based operations.
Citations
* New England Synod, ELCA, et al. v. DHS, et al., Case No. 25-40102-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 13, 2026).
Subscribe
To stay updated on the New England Synod case and other breaking news regarding religious freedom, like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV. Our subscribers receive immediate access to new case filings and exclusive legal info.
Disclaimers
AI Disclaimer: This article was assisted by AI.
Legal Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
Tags
Religious Freedom, RFRA, Immigration Enforcement, DHS Policy, Federal Court Ruling