UNITED STATES – MARCH 4: President Donald Trump enters the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 4, 2025 (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images).
The Trump administration defied a federal court order restricting “warrantless” immigration enforcement actions inside churches and should now face contempt proceedings, a new court filing alleges.
The dispute stems from July 2025, when an ecumenical group of churches brought a 44-page lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The churches accused the agency of violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In the case, the plaintiffs said street-level Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had carried out raids during worship services and, in some instances, detained parishioners as they were entering churches — allegedly without warrants signed by a judge.
In February, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, an appointee of George W. Bush, issued a 62-page memorandum and order that largely rejected the government’s justification for such enforcement tactics, allowing them only in the narrowest circumstances. The court also forcefully declined to place the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda above religious liberty concerns.
The churches now argue that the government has failed to comply with the court’s accompanying preliminary injunction.
“Plaintiffs write to alert the Court to recently disclosed evidence of Defendants’ multiple egregious violations of the preliminary injunction in this case, including deploying an undercover ICE agent into one of Plaintiffs’ protected churches to surveil and record people inside,” the notice of noncompliance states at the outset. “Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction.”
The filing says DHS effectively acknowledged the alleged violations through a series of filings submitted in a separate, ongoing criminal proceeding in Minnesota.
In those documents, filed in early August, DHS said an ICE agent took part in “boxing/sparring practice” during a mixed martial arts meeting called “Left Jab” at University Baptist Church in Minneapolis in May.
“Due to the physicality of the event, [the undercover agent’s] concealed body-worn audio recorder erroneously fell to the floor of the gymnasium near the end of the training,” an investigative note in one document reads. “[The undercover agent] briefly left the gymnasium, realized she no longer had the device, and returned to the gymnasium to retrieve the device from the floor. “
During the boxing class, the undercover agent was “surveilling and recording attendees in the church gymnasium for approximately two hours,” the motion alleges. The filing explains, “the gymnasium is located within the church building, immediately below the sanctuary.”
In that same investigation, DHS also filed court records that show ICE agents were conducting surveillance “in the area of the University Baptist Church” and photographing license plates in April.
“[Special Agent] Briseno drove through the library parking lot to check which vehicles had departed once the individuals exited the church,” the second DHS filing reads. “Three of the vehicles had departed. Registration checks were conducted on those vehicles.”
The plaintiffs say the government was made aware it could not spy at the church in question — due to a court order which identified so-called “protected locations” covered by the injunction.
“Defendants have repeatedly violated the preliminary injunction at University Baptist Church in Minneapolis, including by sending an undercover ICE agent into the church itself in order to spy on those inside,” the motion goes on. “The church was designated by Plaintiffs as a Protected Location on every list of locations they provided DHS, the first of which was filed on February 27, 2026.”
The plaintiffs in the civil case went further than required to alert ICE to the protections afforded the particular church.
“Further, though not required to do so to receive the protections of the Court’s order, the church posted signage in March at all main exterior entrances stating, ‘These Premises are a Protected Area Pursuant to Federal Court Order in New England Synod v. Department of Homeland Security,'” the motion continues.
The plaintiffs say ICE’s actions were “blatant and repeated” and caused “harm to fundamental rights of religion and expressive association.”
In the Minnesota criminal case in which DHS extensively documented its undercover surveillance of immigration activists, 15 individuals face allegations of conspiracy to prevent, impede or injure federal officers.
“Members of the church learned of the violations last week and have been shocked and upset that ICE not only was monitoring the church, and doing so on Sundays, a holy day of worship, but even entered the church itself,” the motion goes on. “As stated by a current member and recent president of the church: ‘This is a complete violation of our sacred space. The Church is meant to be a place of sanctuary and safety—not infiltration by government agents.'”
To hear the plaintiffs tell it, ICE’s actions “constitute clear and egregious violations of the Court’s preliminary injunction order.”
“The Court therefore should issue an order to show cause and require the government’s prompt response why it should not be held in contempt for violations of the preliminary injunction,” the motion requests.
The post Trump admin should be held in contempt for ‘blatant’ violations of court order barring ICE from conducting surveillance inside churches, court filing says first appeared on Law & Crime.
