Can Churches Be Sanctuaries? A First Amendment Analysis

The First Amendment prevents the government from requiring a religion or favoring one religion over others. It also prevents the government from interfering with how faith communities practice their deeply held beliefs or forcing faith upon anyone.

As an expression of their deeply held beliefs and religious values, some churches and houses of worship provide sanctuary to people, including those seeking shelter from deportation. But what exactly is “sanctuary,” and how does it relate to churches and the First Amendment?

What is ‘sanctuary’?

For the purposes of this article, sanctuary refers to the practice of offering shelter or protection to people who are fleeing trouble or avoiding legal scrutiny. This may look like a church or house of worship offering physical shelter or refuge on church grounds or other forms of hospitality.

Some historical and contemporary examples include:

• In the early-to-mid 19th century, churches and houses of worship were used as links in the Underground Railroad offering shelter to people escaping slavery.
• During the Vietnam War, people resisted orders to serve in the U.S. military by staying in churches.
• Houses of worship have often served as places of sanctuary for people experiencing homelessness, even when official city policy or zoning rules restricted such places being used for overnight shelters.
• In the 1980s, a “sanctuary movement” began to house immigrants from Central America who were at risk of deportation under the administration of President Ronald Reagan, with several churches in the U.S. offering sanctuary.
• In more recent years, churches have similarly offered shelter to immigrants who may have deportation orders or believe they could be targets for deportation under orders from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Do churches and houses of worship have a First Amendment right to serve as a sanctuary?

To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on whether there’s First Amendment protection for churches or houses of worship that prevents police and immigration authorities from entering to detain or arrest a person.

Currently, the main legal arguments in favor of this protection are based in two legal concepts:

• The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its state counterparts: In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that generally applicable laws, which might include laws against aiding and abetting criminal behavior, do not violate the free exercise clause just because they burden religious practices. In response, some states passed RFRA laws, which require the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when passing or enforcing a law that limits religious practices.

  In this instance, key questions would include whether offering sanctuary is part of a group’s religious mission and whether allowing the government to invade that sanctuary interferes with that mission. If it does, the government would have to show that finding and deporting undocumented immigrants, for example, is a compelling interest that can only be achieved by entering these locations.

• First Amendment right of association: Some religious groups — the Quakers in particular — argue that providing sanctuary is protected by the First Amendment right to association, which is part of the right to peaceful assembly. This argument states that the threat of government action, such as immigration enforcement, has a chilling effect on people coming together in group worship.

In the absence of a single Supreme Court ruling applicable to these situations, it is mainly long-standing practice by immigration authorities and federal, state, and local police, that has shielded churches and houses of worship from some law enforcement actions.

In 2011, the administration of President Barack Obama issued guidelines for federal immigration authorities that restricted enforcement activity, such as arrests, interviews and searches, in houses of worship and other “sensitive locations.” The guidelines were “designed to ensure that these enforcement actions do not occur at nor are focused on sensitive locations such as schools and churches unless (a) exigent circumstances exist, (b) other law enforcement actions have led officers to a sensitive location ... or (c) prior approval is obtained.” The first administration of President Donald Trump, from 2017 to 2021, kept those guidelines in place. Under the administration of President Joe Biden, the Department of Homeland Security expanded the restrictions to include more sensitive locations and “protected areas.”

These restrictions on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations ended in the early days of Trump’s second term. A day after his inauguration in January 2025, DHS rescinded the Biden-era guidance, with a spokesperson saying in a statement: “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

Ongoing legal cases around sanctuary and churches

Since the First Amendment gives people broad leeway to practice their religion, it follows that faith groups may claim their beliefs shield people from immigration enforcement actions inside houses of worship. But asserting a First Amendment religious freedom defense does not prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration law — or any law.

The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that the federal government has expansive power to enforce immigration law, even when people claim a First Amendment defense. In a 1999 case (Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee), the court sided with the federal government, affirming the government’s ability to deport people who are in the country illegally, even when First Amendment issues are involved.

RELATED: Are Non-Citizens Protected by the First Amendment?

In January 2025, a group of 27 religious communities sued the Department of Homeland Security over its updated policies around immigration enforcement that were announced shortly after President Trump’s inauguration. The group, led by the Mennonite Church, claimed the new policy violated their First Amendment religious freedom rights, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

In April 2025, a federal judge denied their request to stop the DHS policy change, saying the group did not have standing to sue since they had not shown they had been or would be harmed and did not show “a ‘credible threat’ of enforcement” under the policy change.

Other faith groups have brought or signaled they might bring lawsuits over immigration enforcement at houses of worship. In February 2025, a federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked the Trump administration policy for a group of Quakers, joined by some Georgia-based Baptist churches and a Sikh temple in California, who claimed the same right to offer sanctuary while a lawsuit plays out.

Religious roots of sanctuary

The roots of the connection between houses of worship and sanctuary go beyond the U.S., and deeper into religious traditions spanning thousands of years.

That history informs how modern religions and faith traditions intersect with U.S. government policy when exercising their religious beliefs. It also forms the basis of the argument that offering sanctuary is part of some faith groups’ right to freely exercise their religion.

One example is in the biblical Old Testament and Torah, referenced by Christians and Jews alike. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the cities are destroyed by God’s wrath, is used as a cautionary tale about honoring the importance of welcoming strangers and offering them shelter and hospitality.

Another example is a Catholic prayer, called “Welcoming the Stranger: Prayer for Hospitality,” that offers insight into how the world’s largest Christian denomination views issues around sanctuary.

This prayer does not command Catholic parishes to offer physical sanctuary as part of official church doctrine. But it sheds light on how Catholic social teaching encourages members of the faith to interact with people seeking shelter and security — and how that teaching intersects with government.

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, church social teaching says:

1. People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.
2. A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control migration.
3. A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.

The interpretation of these religious texts prompts the question of whether a First Amendment right exists for houses of worship to offer sanctuary as part of their religious practices. Courts will need to resolve the question of whether, or to what extent, the government can stop faith groups from providing sanctuary in churches without violating their religious freedom.

Scott A. Leadingham is a content writer at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].

Freedom Forum Fellow for Religious Freedom Richard Foltin contributed expertise and background research for this article. Learn more about Freedom Forum fellows and First Amendment experts.