Opinion: Minnesota church invaders should face FACE Act charges

Columnist argues that disrupting religious services is a federal crime that warrants prosecution.

Feb. 3, 2026 at 7:39pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The author argues that the recent incident where a group of protesters disrupted a church service in Minnesota should be prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law meant to protect abortion clinics that also covers places of worship. The author acknowledges being strongly opposed to the actions of immigration enforcement agencies, but believes the church invasion was a 'disgusting display of arrogance, bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy' that violated the First Amendment rights of the worshippers.

Why it matters

The FACE Act was enacted to protect people exercising their constitutional rights, including the right to religious freedom. This incident raises questions about the scope of the law and whether it should be applied to disruptive protests targeting places of worship, not just abortion clinics.

The details

A group of protesters, many wearing masks, rushed into a church in Minnesota last month, disrupting the service and chanting things that no child should have to hear. The author argues this was a federal crime that should be prosecuted under the FACE Act, which prohibits using force or threats to interfere with someone exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of worship.

  • The FACE Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
  • The recent church invasion incident occurred last month in Minnesota.

The players

FACE Act

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a 1994 law that prohibits using force or threats to interfere with someone exercising their constitutional rights, including the right to religious freedom at a place of worship.

Minnesota church protesters

A group of protesters, many wearing masks, who disrupted a church service in Minnesota last month, chanting things that no child should have to hear.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We cannot sit by while radical extremists show blatant disregard for the First Amendment rights of worshippers, regardless of the faith they profess or the opinions they hold, simply because they disagree with the government.”

— Christine Flowers, Columnist

What’s next

The Department of Justice is expected to file charges against the Minnesota church protesters under the FACE Act.

The takeaway

This incident highlights the importance of protecting religious freedom and the right to worship without fear of disruption or violence, even for those with differing political views. The FACE Act should be applied equally to protect all places of worship, not just those associated with certain causes.