Did anti-ICE church protestors in Minnesota violate federal law?

A brazen and disruptive intrusion by anti-ICE activists during a Sunday worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, has rightly drawn national outrage and sparked a federal investigation into potential violations of civil rights laws. The protesters, organized by various left wing groups, stormed the sanctuary, chanting slogans and effectively shutting down the service. This understandably left congregants, including children, very upset. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is now examining whether these actions violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act).

At first glance, applying the FACE Act (originally passed in the 1990s to combat violent blockades and threats at abortion clinics) might seem unexpected. But the law’s text is clear and broad. Congress deliberately extended protections to places of religious worship. It recognized that the same aggressive tactics used against medical facilities could be weaponized against houses of worship. The law exists to prevent raucous interference and other hostilities toward religious exercise.

What the FACE Act actually prohibits

Under 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), it is unlawful for anyone to:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.

This provision exists precisely because disruptions like the one in Minnesota threaten the fundamental right to peaceful worship. The activists did not simply express disagreement outside. They invaded the sanctuary mid-service, chanting demands and accusations. They turned a sacred space into a stage for their political theater.

Why the definitions are critical (and why this conduct looks troubling)

The FACE Act does not criminalize all protest or even offensive speech. It targets specific, harmful conduct with narrow definitions. Here are the key definitions for this situation:

• To “interfere with” means restricting a person’s freedom of movement.
• To “intimidate” means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
• A “physical obstruction” means rendering ingress to or egress from a place of religious worship impassable, or unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

Reports and video evidence suggest the protesters crowded the sanctuary, positioned themselves in the middle during the sermon, and caused congregants to be very upset. This was not peaceful picketing. It was a calculated invasion that terrified families and halted a Christian service. Given the current political climate and instances of violence, it seems the government should be able to prove that worshippers – who were clearly exercising a First Amendment right – were placed in reasonable apprehension that either they or their loved ones would be harmed.

Federal enforcement, civil options, and state inaction

The FACE Act allows not only criminal prosecution but also civil suits, including by state attorneys general. Minnesota’s AG could theoretically act to defend residents’ religious freedom. However, given the state’s political leadership (often sympathetic to disruptive protests), we have no reason to hold our breath awaiting enforcement from local or state officials.