Why the DOJ is Using the FACE Act in Minnesota
When we hear “FACE Act,” most of us immediately think of reproductive health clinics. For decades, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act has been the primary tool for prosecuting individuals who physically block access to abortion providers.
But this week, a dramatic scene at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, is reminding the country of a lesser-known but equally powerful provision of that same 1994 law: the protection of religious liberty.
Following the invasion of Cities Church by agitators on January 18, the Department of Justice has signaled a major shift in enforcement, launching a federal investigation into whether the disruption violated the civil rights of the congregants inside. Here is why this case matters and how a law designed for clinics is now shielding the pews.
The Incident in St. Paul
On Sunday, January 18, 2026, the morning service at Cities Church was abruptly halted. Protesters affiliated with anti-ICE and Black Lives Matter groups entered the private sanctuary to confront a pastor whom they alleged was an ICE official involved in a recent controversy.
Eyewitnesses and video footage show the group marching into the nave, chanting slogans like “ICE Out,” and effectively stopping the worship service. While political protest is a cornerstone of American democracy, the critical legal question here is where that protest took place. By crossing the threshold from the public sidewalk into the private sanctuary, the agitators moved from protected speech to potential federal criminality.
The Legal Hook: 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2)
While the media often focuses on the “Clinic” part of the FACE Act, the statute’s full text is explicitly broader. Section (a)(2) makes it a federal crime for anyone who:
“By force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes 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.”
To secure a conviction, federal prosecutors don’t need to prove that the protesters were violent. They simply need to prove three things:
- Intent: The goal was to disrupt the service.
- Obstruction: The agitators’ physical presence made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for congregants to worship.
- Protected Activity: The victims were engaged in religious exercise at a house of worship.
A “House of Worship is Not a Public Forum”
The distinction between “public” and “private” is the linchpin of this investigation. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was blunt in her assessment earlier this week, stating that “a house of worship is not a public forum.”
This is a critical legal concept. You have a right to protest on the sidewalk outside a church. You do not have the right to commandeer a private religious service to amplify your message. The DOJ is arguing that by invading the sanctuary, the agitators engaged in “physical obstruction” and “intimidation”—tactics that strip congregants of their safety and their constitutional right to worship in peace.
Why This is a Turning Point
Historically, the “religious worship” clause of the FACE Act has been gathering dust. Despite numerous acts of vandalism and disruption at churches over the last decade, federal charges have been rare, with most incidents relegated to state-level trespassing misdemeanors.
The swift federal response in Minnesota suggests the Department of Justice is adopting a new, more aggressive posture. By elevating this incident to a federal civil rights investigation, the DOJ is sending a clear message: the federal government views the sanctity of a church service as equal to the sanctity of a clinic.
The Bottom Line
The events at Cities Church have set up a major test for the FACE Act in 2026. If the DOJ successfully prosecutes these agitators, it will establish a powerful precedent that protecting “access” means protecting the ability to pray without intrusion, regardless of the political grievances of those outside the doors.
Adams revealed his cancer diagnosis in May. “I have prostate cancer that has also spread to my bones,” Adams said. “I expect to be checking out of this domain sometime this summer.” 