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.