Church Groups Sought Contempt Order Against ICE

Plaintiffs argued federal agents violated a court injunction by conducting an undercover operation at a church.

Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Immigration

Bold flat-color editorial illustration showing a stylized stone archway, representing the conflict between federal enforcement and religious sanctuary. — Plaintiffs filed a contempt motion in federal court on 20 August, alleging ICE agents violated a court injunction by conducting undercover operations at a church. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should federal authorities be prohibited from conducting undercover operations inside religious houses of worship?

Plaintiffs filed a contempt motion on 20 August in federal court, alleging that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated a 13 February injunction. The motion followed an incident where an undercover agent recorded a martial arts session at a church.

Why it matters

The case tests the boundaries of an injunction intended to shield houses of worship from immigration enforcement actions. It highlights a central conflict between federal officer safety protocols and the legal protections afforded to religious institutions.

Plaintiffs allege the Department of Homeland Security breached a court order issued on 13 February. The case remains under judicial review to determine if the specific gym activity fell within the scope of the established enforcement restrictions.

The players

Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV

He is a federal judge serving on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts who issued the February injunction.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

This is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing immigration laws.

University Baptist Church

This is a Minneapolis religious institution that had previously posted notices declaring its property protected by a court order.

The details

On 28 May, an undercover agent attended a martial arts session at University Baptist Church while wearing a concealed audio recorder, which fell to the floor during the activity. While the government maintains the operation was necessary to protect federal officers and fell outside the scope of the injunction, plaintiffs argue the activity violated the protected status of the religious property.

13 February 2026: Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction.
28 May 2026: An undercover agent carried out an operation at the church.
20 August 2026: Plaintiffs filed a formal motion for contempt.
4 September 2026: The court heard arguments regarding the contempt request.

Political Context

The government asserts the operation was a protective measure, challenging the premise that the injunction precludes all federal activity at religious sites. Opposition groups argue that such surveillance undermines judicial authority and the religious freedom protections established by the court.

The ongoing court proceedings may result in stricter interpretations of where federal agents can operate within local communities. Residents and religious organizations may see changes in how federal law enforcement interacts with sensitive spaces like University Baptist Church.

The takeaway

This case illustrates the legal friction between federal surveillance initiatives and the designated immunity of religious spaces. The court's eventual ruling will set a critical precedent for how law enforcement must navigate court-ordered restrictions in sensitive locations.