The Fourth Circuit has blocked some Trump immigration actions at eight houses of worship.
The court ruled Tuesday that the policy likely violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The case involves religious sites tied to Quaker, Sikh, and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship groups.
However, the ruling does not apply across the country.
Instead, it protects the eight religious groups that filed the lawsuit. Their worship sites also receive protection.
As a result, the case adds to the legal fight over Trump immigration enforcement and religious freedom.
Fourth Circuit Blocks Trump Enforcement
A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier court order.
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued that order in Maryland.
Under the order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must limit some enforcement actions.
The order follows protections similar to those in a 2021 policy.
At that time, the policy limited immigration actions in certain sensitive places.
Houses of worship were among those protected sites.
Religious study sites also received protection.
However, the Trump administration later ended that policy.
Afterward, religious groups took the issue to court.
They said immigration actions near their sites could disrupt worship.
In turn, the Fourth Circuit found that the groups faced a serious risk.
Eight Religious Groups Receive Protection
The ruling does not cover every house of worship in the country.
For example, it does not apply to every church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.
Instead, the order covers the eight groups in the lawsuit.
Their affiliated worship sites also receive protection.
For now, this limit is important as the case continues.
Meanwhile, other religious groups may watch the case closely.
Some could bring similar claims if they face similar problems.
Court Cites Religious Freedom
Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote the main opinion.
Judges Pamela Harris and G. Steven Agee also served on the panel.
In the decision, the judges focused on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
RFRA protects religious practice from certain government actions.
More specifically, the law can apply when government action places a major burden on religious exercise.
The court found that the groups faced a real threat.
As a result, that threat could affect their ability to worship and serve others.
The groups also work with immigrant communities.
According to the court, statements from DHS officials supported their concerns.
Those statements related to possible enforcement at religious sites.
Therefore, the court kept the earlier protection in place.
RFRA Claims Drive the Decision
The Fourth Circuit based its decision on RFRA.
However, the court did not decide every issue in the case.
The religious groups also raised First Amendment claims.
But, the appeals court did not decide those claims.
Therefore, the First Amendment issue remains open.
Trump Defends Immigration Policy
The Trump administration has defended its immigration policy.
At the same time, officials say the policy does not stop religious groups from holding services.
DHS also rejected claims that agents target houses of worship.
Instead, the agency said officers can still make arrests when public safety requires it.
For example, DHS said agents could act if a dangerous criminal entered a religious site to avoid arrest.
As a result, the two sides have very different views of the policy.
The administration points to federal immigration powers.
Meanwhile, the religious groups warn about enforcement threats.
They say those threats could keep immigrants away from worship services.
Why It Matters
The ruling is the latest legal challenge to Trump immigration policies.
Previously, in January 2025, the administration ended a Biden-era policy.
That policy limited immigration enforcement in certain protected places.
At the time, the rules covered sensitive locations, including houses of worship.
Later, religious groups challenged the Trump administration’s policy change.
They said the new policy could discourage immigrants from attending services.
They also argued that enforcement could disrupt their religious work.
Then, in February 2026, a federal judge granted them preliminary protection.
Now, the Fourth Circuit has upheld that protection.
However, the larger case will continue.
Implications for Immigration Lawyers
The case could matter to immigration lawyers and civil rights attorneys.
In addition, religious freedom lawyers may follow the case.
For immigration attorneys, the ruling offers an example of court review of federal policy.
More importantly, it shows how federal law can limit government action.
Furthermore, the case may shape future immigration lawsuits.
Law students can also learn from the case.
For example, the dispute brings together immigration law, federal law, and religious freedom law.
First Amendment Issues Remain
The Fourth Circuit did not decide the First Amendment claims.
For now, that issue remains open.
Judge Agee also stressed the limited reach of the order.
In his opinion, he noted that the order does not cover every sensitive location.
The Biden-era policy covered other places as well.
For example, those places included hospitals and shelters.
Therefore, the ruling does not stop immigration enforcement at all sensitive sites.
Instead, it applies to the groups and sites in this lawsuit.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
1. Eight religious groups receive protection
The ruling protects eight religious groups and their worship sites.
As a result, those sites receive the protections covered by the court order.
2. RFRA is central to the case
The court found that the groups were likely to win their RFRA claims.
Therefore, the federal law remains central to the lawsuit.
3. The ruling is not nationwide
Other houses of worship do not receive automatic protection.
Instead, the order applies to the groups named in the case.
4. First Amendment claims remain open
The court did not decide whether the policy violates the First Amendment.
As a result, that issue could return in later proceedings.
5. The case will continue
The Fourth Circuit kept the preliminary protection in place.
Meanwhile, the larger legal fight will continue in court.
What Happens Next?
The fight over Trump immigration enforcement near houses of worship is not over.
For now, the Fourth Circuit has ruled only on the preliminary protection.
It did not resolve every issue in the lawsuit.
Next, the parties may make further arguments about RFRA and religious freedom.
They may also debate the reach of federal immigration power.
In addition, the case could affect future lawsuits involving religious sites.
For now, the eight groups covered by the order keep their protections.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Fourth Circuit rule?
The Fourth Circuit upheld limits on some Trump immigration actions at eight houses of worship.
In addition, the court found that the groups were likely to succeed under RFRA.
Does the ruling ban immigration enforcement at all churches?
No.
Instead, the ruling applies to the eight groups in the lawsuit and their affiliated worship sites.
It does not create a nationwide ban.
What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
RFRA is a federal law that protects religious exercise from certain government actions.
In general, the law can limit actions that place a major burden on religious practice.
Did the court rule on the First Amendment?
No.
Instead, the Fourth Circuit focused on the RFRA claims.
Therefore, the court left the First Amendment claims unresolved.
Why did the religious groups challenge the Trump policy?
The groups said enforcement near their sites could discourage immigrants from attending services.
They also argued that such actions could disrupt their religious work.
What does the ruling mean for immigration lawyers?
The case gives immigration lawyers another example of court review of federal immigration policy.
Furthermore, it may help shape future cases involving immigration and religious freedom.
Could the ruling affect other houses of worship?
The ruling directly protects the groups involved in this case.
However, other religious groups may study the decision.
They could consider similar legal claims if they face comparable enforcement concerns.
Looking for your next legal career move?
LawCrossing connects attorneys and legal professionals with current job opportunities from law firms, companies, and organizations. Explore openings and find roles that match your skills and experience.
See Related Articles:
The post
Trump Immigration Enforcement Faces Court Setback first appeared on
JDJournal Blog.
