Can ICE go into churches, and can ICE enter a church without a warrant?

The court reopened the request to protect congregations

The religious organizations won another chance to obtain a temporary order limiting enforcement while their lawsuit proceeds. Judge Florence Pan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Robert Wilkins; Judge Neomi Rao dissented. The organizations had appealed after the trial court refused their request because it found they likely lacked standing, the legal basis to bring the case.

The majority found a credible threat of enforcement at the member congregations, tied to the government's policy change. It also found that the requested protection could reduce at least some of that harm. That lets the case move beyond the threshold question of who can sue. It does not decide whether the policy violates religious freedom or whether the organizations deserve the injunction they want.

The harm was concrete enough for the court to consider before another encounter occurred. The opinion cites a North Georgia Conference declaration describing ICE agents entering a church daycare office to look for a staff member they believed was undocumented. Other declarations described people staying away from worship and social-service programs. The majority based its decision on the threat of enforcement, without deciding the separate attendance-loss theory.

The case goes back to U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich to reconsider the request, as Courthouse News reported. For a family deciding whether this changes an existing immigration case, an immigration lawyer needs the person's circumstances as well as the court's order. A congregation's ability to sue does not change a worshipper's immigration status.

What changed in the sensitive locations policy

DHS removed a policy that generally discouraged immigration enforcement at or near houses of worship. The earlier policy offered a presumption against enforcement, not an absolute guarantee that agents would never come.

Under the 2021 guidance, agents generally needed prior approval from agency headquarters, or someone headquarters authorized, before acting near protected places. Emergency exceptions allowed action without that approval, including an imminent threat of violence. The guidance also called for minimizing interference with people's access to those places.

On January 20, 2025, DHS rescinded that guidance. ICE's follow-up memo gave specified office-level supervisors responsibility for deciding when and where to authorize enforcement, case by case. The change was about the agency's enforcement policy; it did not erase the Fourth Amendment's limits on searches and entry. The opinion describes both policies and the religious groups' challenge to the change.

1. October 27, 2021

   DHS issues the Mayorkas guidance discouraging enforcement in or near protected areas, with approval requirements and exceptions.

2. January 20, 2025

   Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman rescinds that guidance.

3. January 31, 2025

   ICE issues its replacement guidance on case-by-case supervisory approval.

4. February 5, 2026

   The D.C. Circuit hears the religious organizations’ appeal.

5. October 20, 2026

   The panel reverses the denial of preliminary relief and sends the request back for further consideration.

Public worship areas and private rooms have different rules

ICE can generally enter a church space open to the public on the same basis as other visitors. A room kept private has different protections. A church's private ownership does not, by itself, make every part of the building a private space for this purpose.

The New Mexico Department of Justice's guidance for places of worship explains that public access and a reasonable expectation of privacy matter. It identifies consent, a warrant or urgent circumstances as possible grounds for entry where ordinary public access would not permit it. Any additional court order covering the congregation also matters.

Consider the difference between an open Sunday service and a staff office kept closed to visitors. Calling the whole building a sanctuary does not answer which rules apply to either room.

An ICE warrant is not a court warrant

An administrative warrant issued by ICE does not, by itself, authorize entry into a church's nonpublic rooms without permission. A judicial warrant comes from a court; its scope still matters. A document allowing an arrest is not automatically permission to search every room or seize every record.

The Minnesota attorney general's guidance identifies Forms I-200 and I-205 as examples of administrative warrants. It distinguishes those forms from court-issued warrants and emphasizes checking the place and purpose the document authorizes. The difference is the issuing authority and what it permits, not simply whether the paper has an official seal.

The religious groups in Mennonite Church USA asked for a broader rule: no enforcement at their places of worship or religious ceremonies without a judicial warrant or urgent circumstances. That request would add protection beyond the former sensitive-locations policy. The October 20 opinion allowed them to pursue it; it did not put that rule into effect.

For church leaders, interpreting paperwork is a job for the congregation's lawyer, not a reason to assume an agent must wait. Minnesota's guidance says a person facing arrest can remain silent and consult a lawyer, but ICE does not have to delay taking someone into custody until a lawyer is reached.

A sanctuary label and a court order do different jobs

Calling a church a sanctuary does not create a special federal legal shield, as the ACLU's guidance for places of worship explains.

A separate court case can supply protection, but only within the order's scope. On August 18, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed an injunction requiring DHS to follow the 2021 policy at the plaintiffs' places of worship in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. DHS. The plaintiffs included Quaker organizations, a Sikh temple and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. That decision does not make every house of worship a protected plaintiff.

Whether local officials cooperate with federal immigration enforcement is another issue, addressed in the New York City sanctuary-law dispute. A city policy is not a substitute for understanding a church's access rules or an injunction's coverage.

The difference between winning a legal argument and obtaining a particular remedy also runs through other cases about courts and government power. For a congregation concerned about religious freedom, a civil rights lawyer with experience in these disputes can assess whether an existing order reaches its activities.

What to verify if ICE comes to your church

Church leaders and counsel can prepare a response plan before an encounter.

These are questions for church leaders and counsel to verify, not instructions for resisting an officer. State attorney general guidance warns against interfering with lawful activity or providing false information. This is general information, not legal advice.

1. The designated contact: who is available during services and other programs, and how that person reaches the congregation's lawyer.
2. Access boundaries: which rooms are open to visitors, which are restricted, and whether actual access practices match those distinctions.
3. Any paperwork: who issued it, what place or person it identifies, and what action it authorizes.
4. Any injunction: whether the congregation is covered, what conduct the order restricts, and whether a later order changed it.
5. Individual legal needs: whether a worshipper already has a lawyer and how an encounter relates to their own immigration proceedings.

The next decision is whether to grant protection

The trial court must consider the request for a preliminary injunction after the appeals court's reversal. The October 20 opinion does not set a hearing date or promise an outcome. The question now goes beyond whether these organizations can sue to whether they qualify for relief, and what that relief would cover.

For a church or family trying to apply an order to a real situation, legal help can begin with the specific congregation and the individual's existing case. The next useful document is an order defining protection, not another headline announcing a win.