In New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Department of Homeland Security, (D MA, Feb. 13, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring immigration officials from enforcing a new policy on enforcement operations at churches. The new policy allows ICE agents to conduct arrests, searches, or interrogations in or near churches and other houses of worship at the agents' own discretion. It replaces a 2021 Policy that allowed enforcement actions near churches only in exigent circumstances or with prior approval from Agency headquarters. The court concluded that the new policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The court first concluded that some, but not all, of the 11 Christian church organizations that brought suit have standing because only they demonstrated injuries of decreased attendance at worship services or at social ministries or financial consequences. In deciding to issue a preliminary injunction, the court said in part:
The prospect that a street-level law-enforcement agent—acting without a judicial warrant and with little or no supervisory control—could conduct a raid during a church service, or lie in wait to interrogate or seize congregants as they seek to enter a church, is profoundly troubling. Indeed, according to the new policy, agents could conduct a raid, with weapons drawn, at any type of church proceeding—including a regular Sunday service, a wedding, a baptism, a christening, or a funeral—subject only to the exercise of their “discretion” and “common sense.”
It hardly requires mentioning that freedom of religion is both a core American value and a basic liberty protected by the First Amendment and laws of the United States. That freedom encompasses not merely the freedom to believe, but the freedom to worship, including the freedom to attend church and to participate in sacraments, rituals, and ceremonies. If government interference with those freedoms is ever justifiable, it is only in relatively extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to public safety. The routine enforcement of the immigration laws does not involve such a threat, and cannot justify the harm to religious freedom posed by the new policy.
It is of course true that the presence of millions of illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States justifies a substantial government response. But the need to address that problem cannot override the fundamental liberties on which our nation was founded....
In one important respect, the preliminary injunction is broader than the 2021 Policy.... The preliminary injunction issued by the Court will permit such operations only in exigent circumstances, regardless of supervisory approval. The Court can conceive of no circumstance, outside of a true emergency, in which a law-enforcement operation to enforce the immigration laws inside a church would be justifiable under the First Amendment and RFRA.
The preliminary injunction is also narrower than the 2021 Policy, in that it applies only to the plaintiffs in this case who have standing, and not nationwide.... The preliminary injunction will also, as noted, exempt immigration-enforcement actions taken pursuant to an administrative warrant or judicial warrant.
Democracy Forward issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to the original complaint filed in the case.
