Background
In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued a policy that eliminated longstanding restrictions on immigration enforcement at "sensitive locations" including churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship. This policy replaced a 2021 memo that had required headquarters approval before conducting immigration operations at religious sites. Several church organizations, led by the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, challenged the policy after experiencing measurable declines in attendance and religious participation due to congregants' fears of immigration enforcement during worship services.Legal Question
Whether the DHS policy permitting warrantless immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by substantially burdening religious exercise without employing the least restrictive means to achieve the government's compelling interest in immigration enforcement.Holding
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the DHS policy likely violated RFRA. The court determined that the policy substantially burdened religious exercise by creating a chilling effect that discouraged worship attendance and participation. While acknowledging the government's compelling interest in immigration enforcement, the court concluded that DHS failed to demonstrate it was using the least restrictive means available, particularly given that the previous policy requiring case-by-case headquarters approval had functioned effectively without completely prohibiting enforcement operations.Significance
This decision reinforces RFRA's protection of religious institutions from government policies that substantially burden religious practice, even when those policies are facially neutral. The ruling establishes that immigration enforcement policies must accommodate religious exercise when less restrictive alternatives exist. The case demonstrates how federal courts will scrutinize policies affecting houses of worship under RFRA's strict scrutiny standard, requiring the government to prove both compelling interest and least restrictive means. This precedent may influence future disputes over government enforcement activities at religious sites.Key Statutes & Provisions
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
- First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
- Immigration and Nationality Act (enforcement provisions)
- Fourth Amendment (warrantless searches and seizures)
Official Documents
New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (25-40102-FDS) is a Free Exercise case decided by the U.S. District Court in 2026. The court held that a DHS policy permitting warrantless immigration enforcement at churches violates RFRA by substantially burdening religious exercise without using the least restrictive means of enforcement. The case resulted in a Pro-Religion outcome.
## Background
In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued a policy that eliminated longstanding restrictions on immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations” including churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship. This policy replaced a 2021 memo that had required headquarters approval before conducting immigration operations at religious sites. Several church organizations, led by the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, challenged the policy after experiencing measurable declines in attendance and religious participation due to congregants’ fears of immigration enforcement during worship services.
## Legal Question
Whether the DHS policy permitting warrantless immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by substantially burdening religious exercise without employing the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s compelling interest in immigration enforcement.
## Holding
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the DHS policy likely violated RFRA. The court determined that the policy substantially burdened religious exercise by creating a chilling effect that discouraged worship attendance and participation. While acknowledging the government’s compelling interest in immigration enforcement, the court concluded that DHS failed to demonstrate it was using the least restrictive means available, particularly given that the previous policy requiring case-by-case headquarters approval had functioned effectively without completely prohibiting enforcement operations.
## Significance
This decision reinforces RFRA’s protection of religious institutions from government policies that substantially burden religious practice, even when those policies are facially neutral. The ruling establishes that immigration enforcement policies must accommodate religious exercise when less restrictive alternatives exist. The case demonstrates how federal courts will scrutinize policies affecting houses of worship under RFRA’s strict scrutiny standard, requiring the government to prove both compelling interest and least restrictive means. This precedent may influence future disputes over government enforcement activities at religious sites.
## Key Statutes & Provisions
– Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
– First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
– Immigration and Nationality Act (enforcement provisions)
– Fourth Amendment (warrantless searches and seizures)