Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced on Sunday that there is no federal basis to prosecute the rioters who disrupted St. Paul Cities Church, labeling the incident as “First Amendment activity.” In a CNN interview, he expressed support for the protesters, claiming they were exercising their rights, and stated he would not enforce state laws related to trespassing or disorderly conduct that they might have violated.
Ellison is well known for his controversial support of various groups and has faced criticism for his past comments regarding extremist movements. He previously sparked debate by saying Antifa “strikes fear into the heart” of President Trump, while also holding up an Antifa Handbook. Moreover, his son, Minneapolis City Councilman Jeremiah Ellison, openly supported Antifa during protests earlier in the summer.
Additionally, Ellison has a history of making polarizing statements, including a comment criticizing the U.S. Constitution, which he described as “the backbone of American law and the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”
Some people might view the disruption of the church as a shocking act that transcends political lines. If that’s your perspective, then perhaps you’re not familiar with Keith Ellison.
Erin Burnett, the host of the CNN segment, focused on the “bad optics” of the event instead of addressing the attack on the church itself. Even then, Ellison seemed unwilling to denounce the disruption or recognize the implications for religious practices, insisting it was “First Amendment activity” rather than a crime.
Yet, there’s a distinction to be made. Yes, protesting outside a church is covered by the First Amendment, but disrupting worship, trespassing, and verbally harassing church members are behaviors that are not protected speech. Ellison, who is meant to enforce the law impartially, shifted his focus to criticize the Trump administration, stating: “If Trump likes you, you can’t do anything wrong.” While there are legitimate concerns about unfair targeting by federal authorities, his selective enforcement undermines his credibility on the matter.
Ellison also appeared on Don Lemon’s podcast, where he dismissed the idea that any federal crime was committed during the incident. He argued that the FACE Act was irrelevant as it primarily protects abortion rights, claiming, “By the way, the FACE Act is intended to protect people’s rights to reproductive rights.” However, this view overlooks the fact that the law also explicitly applies to places of worship, prohibiting actions that challenge the free exercise of religion through intimidation or force.
Notably, Ellison told the public that no federal law was applicable in this case and that the FACE Act was not relevant, which seems to be a misleading assertion. This incident is part of a broader trend where Ellison is accused of aligning law enforcement with political aims.
Ellison has also faced backlash for his failure to adequately pursue significant fraud cases that federal investigators later revealed as among the largest related to the pandemic. A recent recording surfaced showing him meeting with local figures who were later implicated in that fraud.
While pursuing lawsuits against federal authorities trying to investigate fraud and enforce immigration regulations, Ellison shows a troubling pattern of disregarding legal norms. Curiously, he promotes a model of an attorney general that resists enforcing laws while simultaneously stymieing federal actions, almost like a doctor refusing to provide necessary care.
Ironically, Ellison has called for more federal involvement in Minnesota but fails to enforce the laws against individuals in his political circle. This creates a gap that invites further federal scrutiny, maybe justifying the increased surveillance he complains about.
