Staff Reports
The latest headlines say the Fourth Circuit “upheld” a ban on ICE arrests inside churches and other houses of worship. Don’t believe everything you read. What we do know for sure is this: a federal judge in Maryland issued a limited injunction for a handful of religious sites, and the government has appealed. Any claim that a published Fourth Circuit ruling already affirmed that injunction is not yet backed up by the court’s public record.
What the courts have actually done so far
At the trial level, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a preliminary injunction protecting eight specific houses of worship from the 2025 DHS enforcement guidance. Judge Chuang found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claims and imposed limited protection mirroring parts of the older 2021 guidance. That injunction is narrow: it applies to the named Quaker meetings, a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship body, and the Sikh temple that sued, and it preserves exceptions for judicial or administrative warrants and real emergencies.
Where the confusion and puffery come in
Some outlets have reported that a Fourth Circuit panel (Senior Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, Circuit Judge Pamela A. Harris, and Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee) already affirmed the district injunction. That would be newsworthy — but as of now the Fourth Circuit’s opinions page and the appellate docket don’t show a published opinion confirming that. The appeal is real and active, and oral argument was held, but a final appellate opinion must be posted by the court before anyone should treat it as settled law.
Why conservatives should pay attention
Put bluntly: churches and temples should be places of worship, not hideouts for criminals. The Department of Homeland Security, led now by Secretary Markwayne Mullin, changed guidance because officers argued they needed discretion to arrest dangerous people wherever they are. Courts that tie enforcement agents’ hands — even in the name of protecting religious exercise — risk creating safe harbors for criminals. That doesn’t mean trampling religion. It means judges should be careful, precise, and not issue sweeping limits that undercut public safety.
Bottom line
The record right now: a district-court injunction protects eight named religious sites from the 2025 DHS guidance while the legal fight moves up the ladder. The Fourth Circuit appeal is pending and, despite some breathless headlines, an appellate ruling affirming the injunction has not been posted on the court’s official records. Conservatives who want effective law enforcement should watch this case closely, demand clarity from the courts and from Secretary Mullin’s DHS, and push back on any judicial overreach that turns houses of worship into lawless zones. Stay tuned — and demand actual court opinions before treating rumors as precedent.
