Are churches typically left alone during immigration
Executive summary
The long-standing practice of treating churches and other “sensitive locations” as off-limits to routine immigration enforcement has been formally rescinded by the Trump administration, and federal action has increasingly occurred on or near church property, but full-scale raids inside worship services remain uncommon or at least rarely documented; courts, faith groups and news outlets disagree about how often enforcement will enter sacred spaces [1] [2] [3]. The net effect is that churches are no longer reliably “left alone,” even if in-prayer arrests inside services are not yet the dominant, widely documented pattern [4] [5].
1. Policy shift: the rule that once discouraged enforcement in houses of worship is gone
For decades Washington treated places like churches, schools and hospitals as “sensitive locations” where ICE generally avoided enforcement; that internal policy was rescinded on January 20, 2025, removing the extra authorization previously required for arrests in those places [1] [6] [2]. Legal and religious organizations note that the rescission represents a clear administrative change in how agents may approach houses of worship, and several faith coalitions have filed lawsuits challenging the policy on First Amendment and other grounds [6] [7].
2. Documentary record: arrests on or near church property have increased, but in-service raids are rare in reporting
Reporting from multiple outlets shows enforcement activity on church grounds and arrests in proximity to congregations since the policy change, with at least a dozen instances or more described in faith press and regional reporting and specific episodes such as Inland Empire detentions cited by CalMatters [3] [4] [8]. At the same time, some mainstream accounts and court filings note that no arrests during church services have been reported in certain cases, creating a gap between the fear of in-service raids and the documented frequency of such intrusions [5] [9].
3. Courts and politics: litigation has both slowed and clarified enforcement contours
Faith groups have pursued litigation and motions for injunctions to block enforcement inside houses of worship, arguing decades of precedent and constitutional harms; some judges have weighed evidence and sided with the administration, leaving the policy intact while others have constrained operations in specific instances, which means legal outcomes — not a single federal rule — will shape whether churches are left alone in practice [6] [7] [9].
4. Consequences: fear and behavioral change in congregations
Even when agents act outside sanctuary doors rather than during services, the policy shift has chilled attendance and access to social services, with faith leaders reporting sharp drops in worship and program participation and churches shifting to remote services or rights education to protect congregants [3] [10]. That behavioral impact — people staying away from churches to avoid enforcement — is a measurable consequence flagged by plaintiffs and religious reporters [9].
5. Conflicting narratives and the role of sensational reporting
Some outlets and local reports have amplified warnings of widespread, coordinated raids targeting Spanish-speaking churches over holiday seasons, claims that have fueled panic but are unevenly sourced and at times contested; advocacy groups have highlighted planned sweep operations while other news pieces and DHS statements say there are no nationwide plans to raid services even as officials refuse to categorically rule out enforcement at sensitive sites [11] [12] [4]. Readers should note the potential agendas: faith groups and civil-rights litigators emphasize constitutional and pastoral harms, while enforcement advocates stress legal authority and public-safety priorities [6] [7] [13].
6. Bottom line: churches cannot assume immunity, but dramatic in-service raids are not yet universally documented
The practical answer is that churches are no longer reliably “left alone” in policy terms and arrests on or adjacent to church property have been documented since the policy change, but comprehensive, sustained evidence of routine arrests during worship services across the country is limited and contested in reporting and court records; whether a particular congregation will be targeted depends on local enforcement decisions, ongoing litigation, and evolving administrative guidance [1] [2] [3] [9].