FACE Act and Minnesota trespass law scrutinized after anti-ICE demonstrators enter sanctuary mid-service
A group of protesters entered Cities Church, in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Sunday morning as the congregation gathered for worship. Chanting “Justice for Renee Good,” the demonstrators stood in the center of the sanctuary and disrupted the beginning of the service. According to video posted online, one protester described the action as a “clandestine mission” carried out after learning that a pastor at the church was allegedly affiliated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Footage of the incident circulated quickly. While the disruption itself was brief, it has prompted legal debate over whether the conduct violated federal protections for houses of worship or Minnesota criminal statutes. On social media, Harmeet Dhillon, head of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, stated that the department was investigating possible violations of the FACE Act by those involved in the protest.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act, prohibits the use of force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with anyone lawfully exercising their right to religious worship. The statute defines “interfere” as restricting someone’s freedom of movement. “Intimidate” means placing someone in reasonable fear of bodily harm. “Physical obstruction” involves making entry or exit impassable or unreasonably difficult.
In this case, video evidence shows protesters entering the church during the service and standing in the main aisle. There is no visible use of force or threats. There are no reports that entrances were blocked or that congregants were physically restrained. Based on the statutory definitions, it is unclear whether the conduct falls within the scope of the FACE Act. Interruption alone, without evidence of force or obstruction, likely does not satisfy the statute’s requirements.
Minnesota’s state law also offers limited tools for prosecution in this context. State law once prohibited disturbing a lawful meeting, but that provision was struck down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Hensel (2017). The court ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it penalized expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The ruling narrowed the types of speech-related disruptions that could result in criminal charges.
Another case, State v. Olson (1970), involved an individual who shouted at a priest during Mass and was convicted under the old law. However, the decision in Hensel effectively limited Olson’s relevance by emphasizing the need to protect protest speech unless it involves threats, violence, or obstruction.
A more viable legal path may be found in Minnesota’s criminal trespass statute. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.605, a person who enters the premises of another without permission and refuses to leave after being asked by the lawful possessor may be charged with trespass. In this case, if church leaders or security personnel asked the demonstrators to leave and they refused, authorities may pursue misdemeanor charges based on that conduct alone.
There is no public indication that any arrests have been made or that charges are pending. No statements have been issued by Cities Church regarding the alleged ICE connection or whether the demonstrators were formally asked to leave. The Department of Justice has not confirmed whether a federal investigation is active.
As legal analysis continues, the question centers on whether the protest merely disrupted the service or crossed into prohibited interference. Without use of force, threats, or physical barriers, a FACE Act violation may be difficult to prove. At the state level, trespass remains the most likely charge, provided there is clear evidence that church officials demanded the group’s departure.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
A protest during a worship service in St. Paul has raised legal questions after demonstrators entered a church to call out an alleged ICE connection. Federal charges under the FACE Act may not apply unless protesters used force, made threats, or blocked movement. A Minnesota disorderly conduct statute was struck down in 2017, limiting options under state law. Criminal trespass may be the clearest path forward if the group was asked to leave and refused. No charges have been announced.
Plain-Language Legal Discussion
The FACE Act protects people who are worshiping from being blocked or threatened. But just interrupting a church service, without blocking doors or scaring people, is not enough under the law. The government would have to show that the protesters used force or made it hard to move in or out of the church.
Minnesota used to have a law against disturbing lawful meetings. But the state supreme court said that law went too far and violated free speech rights. That means protesters can probably not be charged just for making noise or speaking out during a service.
If the protesters were told to leave and refused, that could be criminal trespass. That charge does not require violence or threats. Just staying after being told to go can be enough.
For now, the strongest legal case may depend on whether anyone asked the group to leave. If that happened and they stayed, prosecutors could act under state trespass law.
Like this article?
Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV to get detailed legal analysis, case updates, and early access to news affecting religious freedom and protest rights. Stay informed with direct explanations and clear reporting on the latest developments.
Case citations
State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. 2017)
State v. Olson, 287 Minn. 536, 177 N.W.2d 69 (1970)
Minn. Stat. § 609.605 (Trespass)
18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE Act)
AI Disclaimer: This article was created with the help of artificial intelligence and reviewed for accuracy. It does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.
SEO Tags: FACE Act church protest, Minnesota trespass law worship, Cities Church ICE protest, DOJ religious freedom investigation, legal analysis church protest