4th Circuit Rejects DHS's Elimination of Protection Against Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (4th Cir., Aug. 18, 2026), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Maryland federal district court's preliminary injunction that rejected DHS's 2025 rescission of a long-standing policy that severely limited immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship. The suit was brought by Quaker, Sikh and Baptist housed of worship. The court said in part:

Among other things, DHS’s new policy removed guidelines requiring that immigration officers weigh various considerations before conducting enforcement actions at these sensitive locations.  Instead, the new policy requires only that the officials use their discretion and “common sense” in deciding where to conduct immigration enforcement actions....

We hold that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims.  Based on the evidence before the district court, it reasonably can be predicted that many immigrants will decide not to attend the plaintiffs’ houses of worship because of the new policy.  So, the plaintiffs’ asserted injury of a decline in attendance at worship services and other activities is fairly traceable to the new policy and likely will be redressed by an injunction limiting the policy’s application.  We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim, because the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that DHS’s new policy substantially burdens their religious exercise. Finally, we hold that the government waived its claim that the new policy satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny by failing to present any legal argument or evidence before the district court.  We therefore affirm the district court’s order imposing the preliminary injunction.

Judge Agee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... [I]t’s also important to keep in mind the narrow scope of the preliminary injunction in this case and the Court’s affirmance of it. First, the preliminary injunction enjoins “potential or actual immigration enforcement actions in or near” the identified list of places of worship connected to the plaintiffs.... Neither the preliminary injunction nor this Court’s decision affirming it restrict DHS’s actions at any other places that the 2021 Policy itself identified as sensitive locations or even at other places of worship....

Second, a host of DHS immigration enforcement actions are expressly permitted by the preliminary injunction....

Third, ... our analysis of the merits of plaintiffs’ likelihood to succeed on their RFRA claim is partially driven by DHS’s inexplicable failure in the district court to advance any relevant evidence or legal argument pertaining to the existence of a compelling government interest and use of the least restrictive means to secure it....

CBS News reports on the decision.

 

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Enforcement Against Plaintiffs of New Guidelines for Immigration Raids at Churches

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, Feb. 24, 2025), a Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration authorities from enforcing against the Society of Friends, Baptist, and Sikh plaintiffs the January 2025 policy change on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as places of worship. Instead, they must comply with the previous 2021 Guidelines. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their 1st Amendment Freedom of Association claim as well as their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It concluded that enforcement of the new policy would likely significantly burden both plaintiffs' right to expressive association and their religious exercise. The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs have provided facts showing that, in light of their religious beliefs and practices relating to immigrants, they can reasonably expect to face immigration enforcement actions at their places of worship pursuant to the 2025 Policy, that such actions will likely result in declines in attendance at their worship and ministry services, and that such declines are, in fact, already occurring.... They have further demonstrated that, as a result ..., certain core religious beliefs and practices will be significantly burdened, including the beliefs that each of the Plaintiffs' religions require regular, communal worship; that at least CBF requires, as part of its religious exercise, that its congregations engage in services to support immigrants and refugees; and that, for the Quaker Plaintiffs in particular, the presence of any firearms in worship services, such as those of armed law enforcement officers, violates their faith.

CBS News reports on the decision.

Quaker Organizations Sue Over New Immigration Enforcement Policy

Yesterday three organizations of Quaker congregations along with two individual congregations filed suit in a Maryland federal district court challenging the Department of Homeland Security's recent change in policy that allows immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations in houses of worship and at religious life-cycle ceremonies.  The complaint (full text) in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (D MD, filed 1/27/2025), alleges that the policy change violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the 1st Amendment's protection of expressive association and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint alleges in part:

89. A diversity of worshippers is an essential component of the Quaker value of “experience[ing] God in a broader, more encompassing way,” as “one’s life experience affects how one hears the spirit and what conclusions one might draw.”... Deterring immigrants from worshipping in-person with a Quaker meeting would therefore directly interfere with Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by lessening their “ability to hear God and what God is trying to tell [them].” ...

90. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Quaker beliefs make it essential that they “encourage others for whom [that] path is meaningful to join.”... But DHS’s new policy, by opening meeting houses to immigration-enforcement activities, inhibits Plaintiffs from doing just that.... Knowingly putting a person in harm’s way or subjecting them to the possibility of a violent encounter with an armed law-enforcement officer would violate Quaker beliefs in peace and nonviolence....

91. Quakers have held a religious commitment against violence for hundreds of years.... For many Quakers, “[t]he presence of a weapon in a Quaker meeting would be absolutely unacceptable.”... The presence of armed immigration officers at meeting houses—which the new policy allows—would thus significantly hamper Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise their faith.... Importantly, even the threat of armed government agents at meeting houses—which has existed since the moment DHS announced its new policy—does the same.

Axios reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Upholds Prison's Change In Schedule For Quaker Meetings

In Green Haven Prison Preparative Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (2d Cir., Oct. 18, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs who are individual and groups of Quakers who object to changes in the schedules for Quaker meetings at a maximum security prison. The court held that as to quarterly meetings attended by incarcerated as well outside Quakers, the non-incarcerated plaintiffs had not shown that under RLUIPA the schedule change had imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. As to weekly meetings attended only by incarcerated Quakers, plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

NY Quaker Marriage Provision Cannot Be Limited To Quakers

In N.B. v. F.W., (NY County Sup Ct, Jan. 4, 2019), a New York state trial court rejected a husband's argument in a divorce proceeding that no valid marriage existed between the parties. The couple, who lived in New York throughout their 13-year purported marriage, had obtained a "self-uniting" marriage license from Pennsylvania and had a wedding ceremony in France at which the couple solemnized their own marriage in the presence of two witnesses and guests. The wife argued, among other things, that the marriage was valid under New York Domestic Relations Law Sec. 12 which recognizes self-uniting ceremonies among Friends or Quakers if solemnized in the manner practiced by their societies. In response, the husband argued that neither party to the marriage was a member of the Friends or Quakers.  The court responded:

The court's ability to hold the marriage as valid or invalid may not, however, depend on the parties' religious affiliation to members of the Friends or Quakers, or on the parties' level of religious observance. To hold otherwise would violate the First Amendment....

The court cannot deny a benefit or right to a person for not following any particular religious practice. To do so would violate the Establishment Clause. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 596 (1992). Husband's argument would prefer religiously observant Quakers over individuals such as the parties here (or vice-versa, since Husband is seeking to "free" himself from a finding of a valid marriage that would have attached to him if he were religiously observant, under his argument).