[USA HERALD] - Federal prosecutors have charged Don Lemon under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act following an incident inside Cities Church that authorities say interfered with a religious service protected by federal civil-rights law. Lemon was arrested on January 29, 2026, and arraigned the next day. The case now turns on how a court classifies his conduct under the statute and what sentencing exposure could follow if a conviction is obtained.
The FACE Act, enacted in 1994 under Bill Clinton and codified at 18 U.S.C. §248, criminalizes the intentional use of force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals exercising their First Amendment right to religious worship at a place of worship. Although the law is more commonly associated with abortion-clinic cases, its text expressly covers churches and religious services, and prosecutors allege that Lemon’s actions during an active service crossed the statute’s threshold.
Video evidence circulating publicly shows Lemon inside the church during worship, dressed entirely in black, including a black beanie. In the recording, he engages with the church’s pastor and is heard stating, “Don’t touch me,” in a forceful tone. Prosecutors are expected to argue that the exchange, when viewed in context, reflects intentional escalation and interference rather than incidental presence. Under the FACE Act, intimidation does not require physical violence; courts assess intent, tone, context, and whether the conduct was calculated to disrupt protected religious activity.
If Lemon is convicted, the sentencing range will depend on how the court characterizes the offense. For a first conviction involving violent or intimidating conduct, the statute authorizes up to one year in federal prison, a fine that may approach $100,000, or both. If the conduct is deemed strictly non-violent physical obstruction, the statutory maximum is six months of incarceration and a fine of up to $10,000. The law provides higher maximums for repeat offenses and significantly enhanced penalties if bodily injury or death results, though no such allegations have been made here.
Crucially, the FACE Act contains no mandatory minimum sentence. Any punishment would be imposed at the court’s discretion after considering the statutory ceilings, the federal sentencing guidelines, the defendant’s criminal history, and the facts proven at trial. While prosecutors in some cases pursue additional civil-rights or conspiracy counts that can increase exposure, no such charges have yet been publicly disclosed at this stage.
As the case proceeds, pretrial litigation is expected to focus on whether the recorded conduct meets the statute’s definitions of intimidation or interference with religious worship. The court’s interpretation of intent and context will be central. Lemon remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
For Context:
Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice arrested and charged individuals under the FACE Act for singing hymns outside an abortion clinic, treating that conduct as a prosecutable violation of the statute. (Video)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samuel Lopez is an investigative journalist and legal analyst with more than two decades of experience examining civil rights enforcement, federal criminal statutes, and high-stakes litigation. As a reporter for USA Herald, Lopez focuses on the intersection of law, constitutional rights, and government accountability, bringing a forensic, evidence-driven approach to complex legal stories. His reporting emphasizes primary-source documentation, statutory analysis, and clear explanations of how legal decisions and prosecutions impact the public.
