Have the protestors in Minneapolis violated the face act when the protested in the cities church
Executive summary
The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into whether anti‑ICE demonstrators who entered Cities Church during a Sunday service violated the federal FACE Act; video shows protesters disrupting worship by chanting and forcing the service to end, but public reporting also records uncertainty about key facts the statute requires for criminal charges (intent, use of force or threats, and the identities involved) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the FACE Act prohibits and why officials invoked it
The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, physical obstruction or property damage to interfere with a person's ability to practise religion or access a place of worship; violations can carry fines and up to 10 years in prison, which is why Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon publicly said the Civil Rights Division was examining the incident at Cities Church [2] [1] [4].
2. What the reporting documents actually shows happened inside Cities Church
Multiple outlets circulated video showing activists entering the service, loudly chanting slogans such as “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good,” causing the service to be disrupted and attendees to exit after roughly 20 minutes; Don Lemon livestreamed portions of the confrontation and several churchgoers and pastors condemned the intrusion as disruptive to private worship [3] [5] [6].
3. Evidence supporting a potential FACE Act violation
On its face, the incident contains elements the FACE Act targets: demonstrators entered a house of worship during a service and disrupted worshippers, actions that DOJ officials described as “desecrating a house of worship” and meriting investigation for potential criminal violations [4] [1] [2].
4. Important factual gaps that make legal conclusions premature
News outlets uniformly note unresolved facts that matter for a criminal case: whether protesters used force or credible threats beyond loud chanting, the demonstrators’ precise intent to block worship versus to protest a public figure, and whether the pastor targeted is the same person alleged to work for ICE — FOX9 and others could confirm a David Easterwood listed as an ICE acting field office director but were unable to verify he is the same individual listed on the church website as a pastor [1] [7] [4].
5. Competing narratives, political stakes and incentives in coverage
Right‑leaning and conservative outlets emphasized the FACE Act angle and framed the protest as an unlawful “invasion” deserving federal response, while local faith leaders and some media highlighted fear among congregations; activist sources framed the action as direct community accountability amid heightened tensions after the fatal ICE shooting that sparked the broader protests — each side has an implicit agenda: public safety and rule‑of‑law arguments on one side, and civil disobedience and moral protest on the other [8] [9] [10].
6. Straight answer: have the protesters violated the FACE Act?
Based on available reporting, it cannot be stated definitively that the protesters have been legally proven to have violated the FACE Act; the DOJ has opened an investigation because the conduct captured on video plausibly falls within the statute’s prohibitions, but substantive elements required for criminal charges (use of force or threats, specific intent, and identity verification) remain to be established and publicly documented [1] [2] [4].
7. What to watch next in this legal and political story
The likely next steps are DOJ and local prosecutors’ fact‑gathering, interviews with witnesses captured on video, verification of identity claims about the pastor, and decisions about charges; meanwhile, expect partisan amplification of any preliminary DOJ language — both to pressure prosecutors and to mobilize supporters — making independent confirmation of key facts essential before drawing firm legal conclusions [1] [7] [11].