The Fourth Circuit's August 18 Decision — Nationwide Expansion Was Not Granted, and Enforcement at Houses of Worship Is Not Entirely Blocked

On August 18, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision limiting immigration enforcement near houses of worship. The lawsuit was filed in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist religious organizations against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Court of Appeals revived, for the plaintiffs in this case only, the prior-approval procedure that the government had eliminated in 2025. This news is easy to read as a sweeping victory for religious freedom, but the actual scope of what changed is much narrower. Understanding what applies, and to whom, is the key to reading this ruling correctly.

The Procedure That Disappeared, and the One That Was Revived

"The 2021 policy directed that enforcement actions be avoided, to the fullest extent possible, in or near protected areas — including houses of worship and religious study locations."

Since 2021, immigration authorities had operated a policy of refraining from enforcement at protected areas (specific locations where enforcement actions are avoided as a matter of policy), including houses of worship. Guidance issued at the time by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas directed that enforcement actions — including arrests, detentions, searches, questioning, service of documents, interviews, and surveillance — not be carried out in or near protected areas. Except in defined exigent circumstances, such as a national security threat, an imminent risk of death, violence, or injury, hot pursuit after directly witnessing a border crossing, an imminent risk that evidence would be destroyed, or the absence of a safe alternative location, agency pre-approval was required before enforcement. Whether or not approval was obtained, enforcement was to be carried out in a non-public setting and in a manner that minimized the effect on people's access to the location.

On January 20, 2025, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman rescinded this policy. The new guidance took the position that "officers can use discretion and common sense" and that agency leadership need not draw clear lines about where immigration law may be enforced. The prior-approval procedure disappeared, and with it, the basis for treating houses of worship differently from any other location.

This appellate ruling did not invalidate the rescission itself. It merely upheld the lower court's decision, which preliminarily ordered the government to comply again with the 2021 policy — but only as to the Quaker, Sikh, and Baptist organizations that brought the suit as plaintiffs. The rescission remains in effect nationwide, and the new guidance continues to apply in full at houses of worship that are not plaintiffs in this case.

What the Court Found — Concrete Harm, Not Abstract Concern

"One church affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship told the court that attendance at its English classes had dropped by 66%."

The basis on which the court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring this claim was not vague concern but concretely presented facts. The court found that the decline in worship and ministry attendance since the policy changed was caused by the new policy and could be redressed by a court order. The plaintiffs are six Quaker meetings, a Sikh temple in Sacramento, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a Baptist network made up of more than 1,400 individual churches.

Multiple churches reported declines in attendance, and some were advised to lock their doors even though doing so ran counter to their beliefs. The Quaker meetings stated that the mere presence of armed law enforcement personnel disrupted worship.

The court found that there was a substantial burden on religious exercise (meaning the new policy makes it genuinely harder to carry out religious activity), noting that the government itself did not dispute that the decline in attendance had already occurred and was likely to continue. The court held that such a burden, even if short in duration, is treated as irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals found no error in the lower court reaching the same conclusion.

The governing statute is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It provides that when the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, the government itself must prove that the action serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. The mere fact that the government has the authority to change its policy does not satisfy this requirement.

Where the Government Fell Short on Its Own

"It is very difficult to win a case without evidence or legal argument."

This statement came from oral argument and was quoted directly in a separate opinion written by one of the three judges on the panel. To prevail in a RFRA case, the government must itself prove that the challenged action serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means available. But the government submitted neither legal argument nor evidence on this point in the district court. Only on appeal did the government argue that the 2025 policy advances a "compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of the nation's immigration laws" — and the court treated this as forfeited, applying the rule that an argument not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

The judge who wrote separately noted that the district court repeatedly invited the government to lay out, in the alternative, any arguments it might have in case the plaintiffs were found to have standing — and that the government declined to do so. The judge added that whether this was calculated litigation strategy or simple oversight does not change the outcome. This win, then, stems less from the inherent strength of the statute itself than from the concrete record the plaintiffs built and the government's failure to respond to it properly.

The court did not separately rule on the First Amendment expressive-association claim (the freedom to gather with like-minded people) that the plaintiffs also raised. Because the case was resolved on RFRA grounds alone, there was no need to reach the other constitutional claim.

The Reach of the Order

"The district court denied both the nationwide injunction and the requirement of a judicial warrant before enforcement that the plaintiffs had requested."

The actual scope of what this decision changes is narrow. The order requires DHS to comply with the 2021 policy when carrying out enforcement in or near the plaintiffs' houses of worship in this case. Other churches, temples, and cathedrals that did not join this lawsuit are not covered by the order. Nor does the order extend to other locations the 2021 policy had listed as protected areas, such as schools, hospitals, and shelters.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a nationwide injunction. It also denied their request that a judicial warrant be required before enforcement. Neither of these was granted to the plaintiffs in the first place, and neither was re-litigated on this appeal. Figures such as the number of locations or states cited in media coverage cannot be confirmed from the text of this ruling.

Even for locations named as plaintiffs, enforcement is not entirely blocked. The ruling explicitly identifies what the order does not prohibit. It does not prevent arrests in or near houses of worship where there is an administrative warrant (a warrant issued by immigration authorities themselves rather than by a court) or a judicial warrant. Even without a warrant, enforcement can proceed where there is a national security threat, an imminent risk of death, violence, or injury, hot pursuit of a person who threatens public safety, or an imminent risk that important evidence in a case will be destroyed. In exigent circumstances, enforcement can proceed without prior approval, with consultation to follow afterward. What was revived is a procedure, not a ban on enforcement.

The fact that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is made up of more than 1,400 churches is not the same as saying the order protects all of them. The fact that a denomination is a plaintiff does not automatically mean every individual church within it is protected. Which locations the order actually covers can only be determined by checking the ruling and the underlying district court order itself.

A Trial That Is Not Yet Over

"This is a preliminary injunction — a decision that preserves the status quo until the trial concludes."

This decision is a preliminary injunction — a temporary decision that applies only until the trial concludes. It is not a final ruling on the merits of the case itself, but an interim measure preventing harm to the plaintiffs while the case is litigated. The Court of Appeals only examined whether the district court had the authority to issue this kind of interim relief. The possibility of a different outcome at trial remains open, and the government may yet submit evidence and arguments it did not offer this time.

That does not mean this ruling is insignificant. For the plaintiffs who documented concrete harm and litigated the matter, it creates real protection for the duration of the case. But exactly how far that protection extends can only be confirmed by reading the ruling itself, and media summaries alone make it difficult to judge whether it applies to you.

Closing Thoughts

The first step is checking whether this ruling applies to you. If your church or temple is not affiliated with the Philadelphia, New England, or Baltimore Quaker Yearly Meetings, the Sikh temple in Sacramento, or the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, this order does not apply automatically. Even so, every religious organization should have its own guidance in place for responding to immigration enforcement — covering entry procedures, how to verify a warrant, and how to instruct congregants.

The real reason the plaintiffs prevailed in this case is that they documented concrete harm — declines in attendance, disruption of worship — with statements and records. Organizations facing similar problems should keep dated records of changes in attendance or curtailed activity caused by enforcement, as this becomes the foundation for any future response. Rather than taking comfort or feeling despair from a single piece of news about this ruling, the right first step is to determine exactly what scope applies to you.

Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.

Law Offices of Jin D. Cho

NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354

(T) 718-353-2699 (F) 718-353-8132

NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

(T) 201-449-0009