MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA — A disruptive protest inside a Minneapolis-area church has escalated into a national controversy, with growing calls from conservative lawmakers, legal analysts, and religious-freedom advocates to pursue charges under the FACE Act, a federal law designed to protect access to places of worship and other protected facilities.
The incident occurred during a Sunday church service when a group of left-wing activists entered the sanctuary while congregants were seated and worship was underway. Video footage circulating online shows protesters chanting slogans, holding signs, and confronting church leadership, effectively halting the service and creating panic and confusion among attendees.
The disruption has reignited a broader debate over selective enforcement of the FACE Act, particularly after the Biden administration previously used the same statute to prosecute and imprison multiple pro-life activists for protests outside abortion facilities.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, passed in 1994, makes it a federal crime to use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because they are obtaining or providing services at a place of worship or religious assembly, as well as reproductive health facilities. While the FACE Act is most commonly associated with abortion-related cases, its statutory language explicitly includes churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.
Legal experts note that disrupting a church service through intimidation or obstruction could fall squarely within the law’s scope if applied consistently.
According to witnesses, protesters entered the church mid-service and refused to leave despite requests from church staff. Congregants, including elderly worshippers and families with children, were visibly shaken as chanting echoed through the sanctuary.
Some protesters accused the church and its leadership of cooperation with federal immigration authorities, a claim the church later disputed. Regardless of motive, critics argue that the manner of protest crossed a legal boundary by directly interfering with religious worship. Local law enforcement eventually restored order, but no immediate arrests were made.
Adding fuel to the controversy, former CNN anchor Don Lemon was present during the incident and reportedly livestreamed portions of the disruption. While Lemon has claimed he was acting solely as a journalist, critics argue his proximity to the protesters and lack of visible effort to distance himself raise questions about whether he was merely reporting or actively participating.
Conservative commentators have argued that journalistic credentials do not provide immunity from the FACE Act if an individual is found to have aided or abetted interference with religious worship. Lemon has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged.
In the aftermath, conservative leaders and legal advocacy groups have demanded that the Department of Justice apply the FACE Act consistently, pointing to recent cases where peaceful pro-life demonstrators received federal prison sentences for non-violent protests. If the FACE Act was used to jail pro-life activists praying outside abortion clinics, they argue, it must also apply to activists who storm a church during worship.
Others warn that failure to prosecute would reinforce concerns that the FACE Act is being enforced selectively and politically, undermining public trust in the justice system.
As of now, the Department of Justice has not announced charges under the FACE Act related to the church disruption. Officials have stated that the incident remains under review, but have not clarified whether federal civil rights statutes will ultimately be invoked.
Civil liberties groups argue that prosecution could chill protest activity, while religious freedom advocates counter that the right to protest does not extend to interrupting worship services.
The Minneapolis church incident has grown beyond a local disturbance and now stands as a national test case involving the FACE Act, religious liberty, protest boundaries, allegations of unequal justice, and the role of media figures operating inside activist spaces.
