Key Facts
- Federal appeals court: The Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction on August 18, 2026.
- Limited coverage: The safeguards apply only at identified houses of worship affiliated with the eight plaintiff organizations.
- Enforcement remains possible: The injunction permits warrant-backed arrests and specified urgent actions.
- Procedural status: The ruling preserves temporary relief and does not finally decide the lawsuit.
A federal appeals court has kept temporary immigration-enforcement safeguards in place at houses of worship affiliated with eight religious organizations. The ruling affects their congregations, visitors and ministries because it limits when and how federal agents may act at identified sites while the lawsuit continues.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the preliminary injunction on August 18. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief meant to prevent harm before a court reaches a final judgment.
What the injunction requires
At the covered locations, the Department of Homeland Security must follow safeguards from its 2021 protected-areas policy. That policy generally directed officers to avoid enforcement at or near houses of worship when reasonably possible.
It also required advance approval for covered actions unless urgent circumstances made prior approval impractical. Agents were directed to minimize disruption and avoid discouraging access to worship when possible.
The injunction does not create a nationwide restriction. It covers only locations identified as affiliated with the six Quaker organizations, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Sikh Temple Sacramento that brought the case.
Other houses of worship, schools, hospitals and shelters do not receive protection from this particular order. Those limits were emphasized in a separate concurring opinion by Judge G. Steven Agee.
What federal agents may still do
The order does not prohibit all immigration enforcement at the covered sites. DHS may conduct arrests supported by administrative or judicial warrants.
Specified urgent actions also remain available without prior approval. Examples include responding to a national-security threat, imminent violence or hot pursuit of someone posing a public-safety threat. They also include responding to the imminent destruction of criminal evidence.
When urgent circumstances prevent advance approval, the 2021 safeguards require consultation after the action. The court therefore did not turn the covered sites into enforcement-free zones.
Why the court upheld the order
The religious organizations argued that the administration’s 2025 policy discouraged immigrants from attending worship, communal meals and ministry programs. Their evidence described lower attendance, reduced participation and pressure to change religious practices intended to welcome visitors.
DHS disputed whether those effects were caused by its policy. The government argued that the organizations lacked standing, that any burden on religion was indirect and that the policy neutrally gave officers case-by-case discretion.
The Fourth Circuit concluded that the organizations were likely to establish standing on the preliminary record. It also upheld the trial court’s finding that they were likely to succeed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly called RFRA.
RFRA generally requires the federal government to justify a substantial burden on religious exercise under a demanding legal standard. The panel held that DHS had not adequately preserved or supported that defense in the trial court for purposes of this appeal.
The appeals court did not resolve the organizations’ separate First Amendment theory. It also did not finally decide whether DHS violated federal law.
What happens next
The injunction remains preliminary and tied to the evidence presented at this stage. The parties may continue litigating the underlying claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Any final ruling could follow a fuller factual record. For now, DHS must use the older safeguards at the covered worship sites while retaining the enforcement options expressly allowed by the injunction.
