'A Complete Violation of Our Sacred Space': ICE Agents Caught Spying on Worshippers Inside Church

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to justify its actions after ICE agents were caught spying on worshippers inside church grounds in Minneapolis, allegedly violating a court injunction.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has until 28 August to explain why it should not face contempt charges for an undercover operation conducted at the University Baptist Church, according to court filings reviewed by Baptist News.

US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction in February blocking federal immigration agents from conducting warrantless raids at places of worship.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by religious groups, who successfully argued that a government policy permitting such actions without judicial oversight infringed upon their religious freedoms.

Details Emerge of Covert Surveillance

Documents reveal the extent of the covert activities, part of an initiative known as Operation Puppet Master, which was outlined in reports from MPR News.

The surveillance campaign began in late January following the fatal shooting of two individuals in Minneapolis. In May, an undercover operative from Homeland Security Investigations entered the church gymnasium to monitor a martial arts class.

The operative sparred with attendees and secretly recorded their conversations using a concealed audio device. After dropping the equipment at the end of the session, the agent returned three minutes later to retrieve it.

Records also show operatives spent hours outside the building on at least two Sundays in April, photographing vehicles and running registration checks on licence plates.

Church leaders expressed deep dismay over the revelations. Jean E. Lubke, a former church president, stated in a sworn declaration that the actions represented a profound intrusion. 'This is a complete violation of our sacred space,' Lubke wrote in court documents, adding that a house of worship is intended to be a place of sanctuary and safety.

Government Defends Its Operations

The Department of Homeland Security defended the operation in court, arguing the operative's presence did not constitute immigration enforcement and was not an injunction breach.

Lawyers contend the surveillance was part of a broader investigation into alleged left-leaning organisations and activists, which officials claim provided material support to individuals impeding federal law enforcement.

According to legal filings, the activities within the gymnasium were not central to the religious mission of the church on that specific day.

Federal attorneys asserted the operations were undertaken to investigate individuals suspected of rioting and destroying federal property, rather than enforcing immigration laws.

Lawyers representing the church groups dismissed the government's rationale, arguing federal agencies cannot unilaterally decide which areas of a protected property deserve sanctuary status.

The legal team stated Homeland Security should not be permitted to take enforcement actions on church grounds and subsequently argue the location did not qualify.

Contempt Hearing Scheduled

The confrontation traces back to the Trump administration's decision to rescind earlier policies designating sensitive locations as off-limits for enforcement. In his February ruling, Judge Saylor highlighted the severe risks posed by the revised stance.

The judge wrote that the prospect of an agent acting without a judicial warrant to conduct a raid during a Sunday service was profoundly troubling.

He noted the policy theoretically allowed agents to enter proceedings with weapons drawn, guided only by their own discretion. In response to the broader directive, civil rights scholars and legal groups have criticised the surveillance as a far-reaching attempt to silence political opponents and crush dissent.

Judge Saylor has scheduled a court hearing for 4 September to evaluate the evidence and determine if the actions meet the threshold for contempt.

Authorities must provide their formal response by 28 August, detailing exactly why the undercover surveillance did not violate the injunction.