A group of churches that secured a court order earlier this year blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from conducting warrantless surveillance on their properties has filed a motion in federal court seeking to force the immigration enforcement agency to explain why it should not be held in contempt for multiple alleged violations of that order.
The motion, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Central Division, cites documents from another criminal case, alleging that the DHS “repeatedly violated the preliminary injunction at University Baptist Church in Minneapolis.”
These violations include “sending an undercover ICE agent into the church itself in order to spy on those inside,” the motion states.
“University Baptist Church is a member of both Alliance of Baptists and American Baptist Churches USA. … 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 (at which point the preliminary injunction took effect),” the plaintiffs add.
Plaintiffs include the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and others.
Even though the church was not required to post signage of their protections under the order, the filing states that University Baptist 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, Case No. 4:25-cv-40102-FDS.’”
Official reports produced by Homeland Security Investigations highlight multiple instances of ICE agents entering church property and engaging in surveillance activities, the motion adds.
“On May 28, 2026, an undercover ICE agent infiltrated a class being held inside University Baptist Church, surveilling and recording attendees in the church gymnasium for approximately two hours,” the motion notes.
A female ICE agent reportedly wore a concealed microphone and “appears to have recorded for the entire time she was inside the church.”
“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,” reads the filing. “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.’”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents plaintiffs in the case, called the allegations against DHS “alarming” in a statement last week.
“Alarming evidence has shown that despite a court ordering them not to do so, ICE agents continue to invade churches and other places of sanctuary, terrorizing the people who seek refuge and respite within them,” Perryman said.
“It is clear that the government will stop at nothing — including at church doors — in its campaign to stoke fear in communities across the country, so we are asking the court to hold them accountable for this intrusion. Democracy Forward is proud to represent our courageous clients, who are demanding accountability from a government that, instead of respecting their religious freedoms, is trying to actively abuse them.”
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the motion from The Christian Post on Friday.
On Sunday, Democracy Forward submitted a “Notice of Supplemental Development” to the district court, a copy of which the legal group emailed to CP on Thursday.
According to the Aug. 23 filing, the plaintiffs sought to “alert the Court” to the government’s “new justification for its surveillance,” which was reportedly that “the use of the church on that day” was not “central” to the “mission” of the church.
“At no point during the parties’ conferral preceding Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show
cause did the government raise this argument to justify surveillance at University Baptist Church,” reads the supplemental development notice. “Nor does this new argument withstand scrutiny.”
CP again reached out to DHS on Thursday for more information about this development in the litigation; however, DHS declined to comment on the litigation or on “investigative methods.”
Michael Gryboski contributed to this report.
Contact: [email protected] Follow Leonardo Blair on Twitter: @leoblair Follow Leonardo Blair on Facebook: LeoBlairChristianPost
