'The court can conceive of no circumstance': Judge bars 'warrantless' immigration enforcement raids at churches to protect 'religious freedom'

The Trump administration has been barred from carrying retired "warrantless" migration enforcement operations successful oregon "within 100 feet of the entrance" to assorted churches crossed the country.

In a 62-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected the request for specified efforts successful each but the astir constricted of cases successful the sanction of spiritual freedom.

"The imaginable that a street-level law-enforcement agent—acting without a judicial warrant and with small oregon nary supervisory control—could behaviour a raid during a religion service, oregon prevarication successful hold to interrogate oregon prehend congregants arsenic they question to participate a church, is profoundly troubling," the justice writes. "Indeed, according to the caller policy, agents could behaviour a raid, with weapons drawn, astatine immoderate benignant of religion proceeding—including a regular Sunday service, a wedding, a baptism, a christening, oregon a funeral—subject lone to the workout of their 'discretion' and 'common sense.'"

The 44-page lawsuit was filed successful July 2025 against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by an ecumenical conjugation of churches, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

"[P]eople crossed the country, careless of migration status, reasonably fearfulness attending houses of worship," the ailment reads. "Churches person seen some attendance and fiscal giving plummet. Congregations person gone underground to support their parishioners, eschewing in-person meetings cardinal to their faith."

The court, acting connected a question for an administrative enactment with an alternate petition for a preliminary injunction, declined to entertain the APA assertion and denied the enactment portion granting the injunction.

Saylor firmly rejected prioritizing the Trump administration's anti-immigration run implicit spiritual freedom.

From the opinion, astatine length:

It hardly requires mentioning that state of religion is some a halfway American worth and a basal liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States. That state encompasses not simply the state to believe, but the state to worship, including the state to be religion and to enactment successful sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies. If authorities interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is lone successful comparatively utmost circumstances, specified arsenic an contiguous menace to nationalist safety. The regular enforcement of the migration laws does not impact specified a threat, and cannot warrant the harm to spiritual state posed by the caller policy.

While offering a concession to the national government's concerns implicit "millions of amerciable immigrants wrong the borders," the tribunal juxtaposes the necessity of a "substantial authorities response" with the quality of churches to behaviour services and rise money.

"But the request to code that occupation cannot override the cardinal liberties connected which our federation was founded," the justice goes on. "And to beryllium clear, the caller argumentation does not simply licence the apprehension of amerciable immigrants successful churches; it permits, without meaningful restraints, the disruption of religion services and functions and the interrogation oregon seizure of anyone who whitethorn beryllium connected religion property, national and non-citizen alike."

The ruling, however, was not an unalloyed win.

The tribunal recovered not each of the plaintiffs – led by the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church successful America – are capable to determination forward. While accepting the Lutheran, Baptist, Metropolitan Community Church plaintiffs had suffered cognizable injuries, 3 Quaker groups were recovered not to person standing.

The court's investigation present begins with an exertion of the analytical model wide known by ineligible scholars arsenic "conservative lasting doctrine."

This judicial theory was created in two cases from the 1920s by blimpish judges who sought to restrain the usage and limits of law redress. In different words, lasting doctrine was created — and has implicit clip been honed and sustained — to bounds lawsuits against the government. While technically procedural successful nature, arsenic opposed to relying connected the underlying merits arguments successful a dispute, lasting arguments thin to beryllium fact-intensive.

To perceive Saylor archer it, the Quaker groups were incapable to amusement they had suffered decreased attendance oregon fiscal harm arsenic a effect of the caller Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) argumentation astatine issue.

While broadly rejecting the "intangible" harms of "fear and anxiety" owed to ICE raids, the tribunal recovered the viable plaintiffs "have suffered astatine slightest 3 cognizable injuries-in-fact: decreased attendance astatine worship services; decreased attendance astatine societal ministries; and fiscal consequences."

As the justice sees it, the crux of the quality is guided by RFRA; portion rejecting the APA claim, the tribunal declined to scope the merits of the First Amendment assertion astatine this signifier successful the litigation.

The justice offers an example:

[The caller ICE policy] would licence immigration-enforcement officers to acceptable up a checkpoint conscionable extracurricular a church, oregon to question parishioners successful the mediate of a Catholic Mass. Without question, those activities would substantially hinder, constrain, and inhibit individuals from attending religion oregon spiritual schools oregon programs, careless of citizenship status, thereby imposing a "substantial burden."

Still, the tribunal hinted that the plaintiffs mightiness person immoderate luck with their First Amendment assertion down the line. The justice opined that a RFRA assertion "is, essentially, a free-exercise assertion that is judged against a much restrictive modular than what the…Constitution requires."

"The preliminary injunction issued by the Court volition licence specified operations lone successful exigent circumstances, careless of supervisory approval," Saylor goes on. "The Court tin conceive of nary circumstance, extracurricular of a existent emergency, successful which a law-enforcement cognition to enforce the migration laws wrong a religion would beryllium justifiable nether the First Amendment and RFRA."