A law that once targeted Christian protests could soon apply to activists accused of disrupting a church service in Minnesota. This move is being considered by the Trump administration, which is contemplating the use of the Free Clinic Admissions Act (FACE) in this case. Legal experts have commented on the history of the act, noting its past applications against Christian groups.
The FACE Act makes it a crime to intentionally obstruct or harm individuals accessing reproductive health services or to interfere with their First Amendment rights in religious spaces. Originally enacted in 1994 during Bill Clinton’s presidency, its goals included preventing violations of religious freedom.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has recently drawn attention. He mentioned that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is examining potential violations of the FACE Act after video surfaced of activists allegedly entering a Minneapolis church to disrupt a service.
Matt Staver, a senior pastor and founder of Liberty Counsel, stated that for any charges to succeed, there must be a clear demonstration of a threat from the activists. He emphasized that the livestream video contained “damning information” about the disruption’s nature. Jeremy Diss, a senior advisor at First Liberty, echoed this sentiment, suggesting the protesters likely made it hard for worshipers to remain in their place of worship.
Staver pointed out that the FACE Act could lead to significant financial penalties, including criminal charges against offenders. Diss mentioned that there might be grounds for the church to pursue compensation for disruptions, potentially seeking civil penalties as well. However, he expressed skepticism that the Minnesota attorney general would act strongly in this matter, fearing it may go unaddressed.
Dillon also noted that prosecutors are contemplating using provisions from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which pertains to protecting civil rights. Staver suggested that former CNN host Don Lemon could face liability if it’s proven he coordinated with protesters to disrupt the service. Lemon, however, denied any prior knowledge of the protest plans.
Diss clarified that First Amendment rights do not permit actions that violate the rights of others, particularly in a religious context. He argued that the FACE Act is vital in reinforcing religious freedom and should be used wisely. Both he and Staver acknowledged the law’s varied history and its potential to safeguard Christians from similar incidents.
Staver highlighted that the law was primarily designed to counter anti-abortion actions but included religious protections to avoid constitutional pushback. He raised concerns about its uneven enforcement, noting that since 1994, pro-life activists have faced prosecution far more often than their opposites. Staver cited troubling instances of these prosecutions, including a notable case involving a 75-year-old woman sentenced to two years in prison for praying outside an abortion clinic.
While both experts agreed that the FACE Act would apply if religious protesters were to target an abortion clinic, Diss highlighted that the DOJ, under the Biden administration, had also faced accusations of misusing this law. The Trump administration had previously indicated it might use the FACE Act to protect First Amendment freedoms within places of worship.
Diss expressed that repealing the FACE Act seems unlikely due to congressional gridlock, but he plans to enforce it for religious freedom as long as it’s around. Staver, on the other hand, believes the law endangers free speech and should be abolished. For the moment, it seems the Trump administration is prepared to leverage the law to ensure order in places of worship.
Looking ahead, Dillon predicted that arrests could be forthcoming, mentioning that the video evidence suggests a clear violation of the FACE Act has occurred. Attempts to reach Lemon or the Justice Department for comments were not successful.
