Story perspectives

Judge Blocks Warrantless Immigration Enforcement Near Churches

2/14/2026

Center

Judge Blocks Warrantless Enforcement

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor ruled that the Trump administration cannot conduct warrantless immigration enforcement near churches.
The ruling protects religious freedom by blocking enforcement near churches.
It stems from a lawsuit filed by a coalition of churches alleging the Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The court allowed some plaintiffs to proceed.
The judge indicated that future First Amendment claims may merit.

Left

Judge Orders Clergy Access

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman ordered U.S. President Donald Trump to permit Catholic clergy to minister at a Chicago-area detention center on Ash Wednesday.
The order follows a lawsuit by the Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership alleging months of blocked clergy access.
The Catholic nonprofit welcomed the ruling and announced plans for clergy to offer communion and ashes to detainees with outside support from coalition members.

History

Historical Context

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted by Congress in 1993, aimed to protect religious practices from government interference, responding to the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. Although the RFRA was later limited by the 1997 City of Boerne v. Flores ruling, it remains significant in ongoing legal battles, including recent cases involving immigration policies and the rights of organizations like the Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership.

1 of 3

Judge Blocks Warrantless Enforcement

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor ruled that the Trump administration cannot conduct warrantless immigration enforcement near churches.
The ruling protects religious freedom by blocking enforcement near churches.
It stems from a lawsuit filed by a coalition of churches alleging the Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The court allowed some plaintiffs to proceed.
The judge indicated that future First Amendment claims may merit.

1 / 3