Obama-appointed judge blocks ICE raids at certain places of worship, defying Trump administration

A coalition of religious groups successfully halted new rules under the Trump administration, which allowed federal officials to enter houses of worship in order to enforce immigration laws.

In response to a lawsuit from a group of Quaker, Baptist and Sikh congregations, an Obama-appointed federal judge in Maryland ordered Monday that the Trump administration must revert to Biden-era rules governing immigration enforcement at the locations where the plaintiffs worship. However, the judge's order does not apply to all places of worship nationwide, and it does not pertain to situations involving a warrant. 

Hours after President Donald Trump took office last month, his administration rescinded a directive issued under former President Joe Biden that prohibited immigration enforcement action in, or near, certain "sensitive" areas, such as churches and schools. 

HOMAN ISSUES STARK WARNING FOR ILLEGALS AMID CLASH WITH SANCTUARY CITY OFFICIALS: ‘WE’RE COMING'

The coalition of religious groups, representing 1,400 Baptist churches, a California-area Sikh temple serving roughly 30,000, and six Quaker meetings located up-and-down the East Coast, sued Trump on grounds that his Day One directive violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly. The groups said the new permissions created a chilling effect that prevented congregants, even those who are legal citizens, from attending worship services.

"The substantial burden that the [Trump administration] policy is far from speculative and is already occurring," U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang wrote in his 59-page opinion. "The 2025 Policy will significantly affect Plaintiff's expressive association by removing any meaningful limitations on intrusions into places of worship by armed law enforcement officers."

SHUTTERED NYC MIGRANT SHELTER HIGHLIGHTS TRUMP'S SUCCESSFUL IMMIGRATION CLAMPDOWN: NY LAWMAKER

Efforts to reach the Department of Homeland Security were unsuccessful at press time. But according to Chuang's ruling, the Trump administration argued that the purported chilling effect caused by its new directive is not "objectively reasonable," because it only iterates that officers exercise discretion when enforcing immigration laws in certain "sensitive" areas, but it does not require them to do so. 

In response to these claims from DHS, Chuang cited a Trump administration press release that stated, "criminals will no longer be able to hide in America's schools and churches to avoid arrest," in an announcement about the policy change. Chuang also cited media reports describing Trump's new directive as something that will "free [federal agents] up to go after more illegal immigrants," and said congregants' reactions were reasonable in light of these narratives and other news reports about ICE detaining legal citizens in their efforts to enforce immigration. 

Chuang added that, given the plaintiffs' openness about serving immigrant communities, it would be reasonable to expect that DHS will direct their enforcement actions at the plaintiffs' congregations.