A striking confrontation broke out in Minneapolis on Sunday as anti-ICE protesters stormed Cities Church, stopping a worship service with bold chants and direct accusations.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun an investigation into potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the historically rooted KKK Act, linked to the incident where demonstrators accused the pastor of being an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent.
This daring disruption has triggered widespread debate about the limits of protest activities and the need to safeguard religious spaces across the country.
Jonathan Parnell, lead pastor at Cities Church, called the protest “unacceptable,” stating it was “shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship,” as reported by Breitbart. His strong reaction mirrors a shared belief that churches should remain safe from political intrusions. The anger among the faithful over this breach is unmistakable.
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon backed this view on X, confirming her team is investigating potential FACE Act violations by those who disturbed the worship. Her prompt statement shows a clear intent to defend religious liberty.
The incident highlights a mounting conflict between activist expression and respect for sacred venues. Many are left wondering how to protect personal spiritual moments from becoming public battlegrounds.
The FACE Act, passed in 1994, aims to secure access to reproductive health services and religious freedom at worship sites, yet data indicate a heavy skew, with 97 percent of cases historically targeting pro-life advocates. Such uneven application raises serious questions about fairness in enforcement.
Harmeet Dhillon, speaking on “The Benny Show,” pointed to a range of possible charges, noting, “I see various crimes that have occurred,” while referencing the KKK Act, a law designed to halt post-Civil War violence against African Americans. She also flagged potential federal angles like mail or interstate planning.
The DOJ appears fully prepared to apply a wide array of legal measures to ensure accountability for this violation of a peaceful gathering. This marks a departure from earlier selective prosecution trends.
Former CNN host Don Lemon was at the scene, filming the disorder on a live YouTube video while maintaining he was “not part of the group” and only there to document. His presence has nonetheless drawn sharp scrutiny from officials.
Dhillon rebuffed Lemon’s account, telling host Benny Johnson that Lemon “knew exactly what was going to happen” and asserting his claim of “committing journalism” offers no protection if linked to a coordinated effort. The DOJ is actively considering charges against him, casting doubt on his detachment.
This development raises pointed questions about accountability for those present during such disruptive acts. The focus on Lemon could set a significant precedent for how involvement is assessed.
Dhillon issued a direct caution to protest planners, stating, “Come next Sunday, nobody should think in the United States that they’re going to be able to get away with this.” Her message underscores a federal commitment to stopping such interruptions.
She made it clear that the government’s full authority will target those who use sacred spaces as stages for ideological conflicts. This could force activist groups to rethink their approaches.
Should this investigation result in convictions, it might alter the dynamics of public protests, especially when they infringe on the profoundly personal nature of worship. The potential for a lasting legal standard to protect religious assemblies is on the horizon.
