Court rules on immigration enforcement near places of worship

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled in favor of Mennonite Church USA and other religious organizations, reinstating protections against immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, including houses of worship. This decision, made on October 20, 2026, affects numerous faith-based organizations across the country that provide support to undocumented immigrants.

The court’s ruling comes as a response to a policy change by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allowed immigration officers to conduct enforcement operations at locations previously deemed sensitive, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues. This shift in policy raised concerns among religious groups about the potential impact on their congregations and the individuals they assist.

Background

The case, Mennonite Church USA v. DHS (Docket No. 25-5209), involves a coalition of 27 Judeo-Christian organizations that filed a lawsuit against the DHS, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The plaintiffs sought to protect their places of worship from immigration enforcement actions, arguing that the new policy violated their rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The dispute arose after DHS rescinded a long-standing Sensitive Locations Policy that had been in place for over 30 years. This policy had instructed immigration authorities to avoid apprehending individuals at sensitive locations unless there were exigent circumstances. In January 2025, the DHS announced a new directive that permitted immigration officers to exercise discretion in conducting enforcement actions at these locations, leading to fears of increased raids and surveillance at houses of worship.

The coalition of religious organizations argued that the change in policy created an imminent threat to their congregations, causing declines in attendance and impacting their ability to provide services to undocumented immigrants. They sought a preliminary injunction to revert to the previous policy and to bar enforcement actions at their houses of worship without exigent circumstances or a judicial warrant.

The Ruling

The D.C. Circuit Court reversed the district court's decision, which had denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs likely had standing to pursue their claims based on the imminent threat of immigration enforcement at their houses of worship. Circuit Judge Pan, writing for the court, stated, “We focus on plaintiffs’ allegations of harm to their members from the imminence of increased enforcement actions, and we hold that all plaintiffs likely have associational standing under that theory to pursue both forms of relief that they seek.”

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement actions at their places of worship, which could lead to irreparable harm. The ruling reinstated the protections of the previous Sensitive Locations Policy, effectively barring immigration enforcement actions at houses of worship unless exigent circumstances existed.

Impact

This ruling is significant for religious organizations across the nation, as it reaffirms the principle that houses of worship should be safe spaces free from immigration enforcement actions. The decision impacts millions of worshippers who rely on these organizations for support and services, particularly those who are undocumented. By reinstating the protections, the court aims to ensure that individuals can seek spiritual guidance and assistance without fear of deportation.

The ruling also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, reinforcing the importance of protecting sensitive locations from enforcement actions that could disrupt community services and religious practices. It highlights the balance between immigration enforcement and the rights of religious organizations to operate freely.

What's Next

The government may seek to appeal the ruling, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. Additionally, related cases may arise as other religious organizations seek similar protections in light of the court’s decision.