The BareStory
Federal prosecutors have indicted two activists following the disruption of a Sunday worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. On Thursday, Nekima Levy Armstrong and St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen were charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The demonstration, which involved anti-ICE chanting and was described by participants as an effort to "disrupt business as usual," was broadcast online by former television host Don Lemon.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison defended the protesters, characterizing their conduct as "First Amendment activity." Ellison argued that the FACE Act was designed to protect access to reproductive health centers rather than applied in this context. Conversely, legal analysts noted that the statute explicitly prohibits the use of force or obstruction to interfere with religious freedom at places of worship. One report highlighted that in 2015, Ellison had urged a FACE Act investigation regarding armed protesters outside a mosque, stating at the time that First Amendment rights are not absolute.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned the recent arrests as a "gross abuse of power" and demanded the activists' release. Frey accused federal authorities of selectively targeting protesters while ignoring the fatal shooting of an activist by an ICE agent. Reports indicate Frey was recently subpoenaed in a federal investigation concerning potential obstruction of immigration enforcement.
While prosecutors also sought charges against Lemon for his presence at the event, a federal magistrate judge declined to sign the complaint. Reports state that the judge’s spouse is employed in Attorney General Ellison’s office. FBI Director Patel warned that no one is exempt from federal scrutiny, while critics argued that the state's refusal to enforce local trespass laws invited federal intervention.
How it may affect me
As a U.S. reader:
• Federal enforcement of the FACE Act at churches establishes a potential legal precedent, subjecting disruptions of religious services to federal prosecution rather than solely local trespass charges.
• Communities where local officials decline to enforce certain laws may see increased federal intervention, as authorities signal intent to step in when state enforcement is deemed insufficient.
• Individuals protesting inside religious institutions may face heightened legal risks, including federal indictments, if their actions are interpreted as using force or obstruction to interfere with worship.
• Conflicting interpretations of the FACE Act could lead to legal battles defining whether the statute applies exclusively to reproductive health centers or extends broadly to all houses of worship.
