Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison yesterday declared that there are no federal grounds for prosecuting the mob that disrupted St. Paul’s Cities Church and declared the conduct to be “First Amendment activity.” Ellison not only supported the protesters as exercising their First Amendment rights in an interview with CNN, but also indicated an unwillingness to enforce state laws violated by the protesters, from trespass to disorderly conduct.
Ellison is infamous for his prior support for violent groups. When Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison proclaimed that Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.
A past defender of extremist Louis Farrakhan, Ellison has criticized the U.S. Constitution, arguing that “their constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”
One would think that a mob action against a church would be something that would transcend political divisions as a grotesque and chilling act. If you thought that, you do not know Keith Ellison.
Notably, in the CNN interview, Host Erin Burnett raised the incident due to its “bad optics” as opposed to the outrageous attack on a house of faith. Yet, Ellison was not even willing to take that lead in objecting to the simple optics as opposed to the denial of religious exercise. He insisted that this is “a First Amendment activity” and not a crime.
He is wrong. Protesting outside of the church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting church services and abusing congregants inside the church is conduct, not speech.
Ellison is supposed to enforce state law without favoritism. Instead, he attacked the Trump Administration, saying, “If Trump likes you, you can do no wrong.” There may be good-faith concerns over critics being targeted by this Administration. However, Ellison is the last person who should raise such objections.
There is not even a suggestion of self-awareness as Ellison dismisses any enforcement of his own laws against protesters who trespassed and engaged in disorderly conduct — putting aside the targeting and disruption of religious services.
Putting aside his own refusal to investigate or prosecute, Ellison has also declared that there are no grounds for federal charges. He is wrong. There are a variety of possible federal laws that could be enforced.
Ellison actually went on the podcast with Don Lemon, who has been denounced for filming the targeting of Cities Church. Lemon seemed intent on strengthening the federal government’s case in prior statements by attacking the faith of the congregants. He declared, “I think people who are, you know, in the religious groups like that, it’s not the type of Christianity that I practice, but I think that they’re entitled, and that entitlement comes from a supremacy, a White supremacy.”
The statement mirrored that of organizer Nekima Levy Armstrong, who leads the local Racial Justice Network, who declared that the churchgoers “need to check their theology and they need to check their hearts.”
Ellison then went on Lemon’s show and insisted that there is no federal crime here. He specifically stated that the FACE Act cannot be used in the case because it only deals with abortion rights: “the FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights… so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into women’s reproductive health centers.”
While it is undoubtedly true that the FACE Act is best known as a bar on protesters targeting abortion clinics, it expressly extends to targeting churches, making it a federal crime to “prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to … exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” Other laws protect against the denial of civil rights.
Ellison, however, told the public that no such laws exist and that the FACE Act cannot apply to this case.
Unfortunately, this is a signature moment for Ellison, who has long been accused of tailoring criminal enforcement to political agendas.
Ellison is accused of doing little to deter billions in fraud in his state. Recently, a tape was released in which Ellison met with Somali figures later convicted of fraud and agreed with them that they needed to support “candidates that will fight to protect our interests.”
At the same time, Ellison has shown disregard for legal standards by filing a frivolous lawsuit to prevent the federal government from sending additional personnel to investigate fraud or enforce immigration laws.
Ellison is a curious form of attorney general who opposes the actual enforcement of laws. Ellison is refusing to enforce his own laws while suing to bar the federal government from enforcing its own laws. He is akin to a doctor who opposes the actual administration of medicine.
In some ways, Ellison has proven the perfect Antifa Attorney General, a law enforcement officer who supports the mob while denouncing the police.
Ironically, Ellison has made the case for increasing federal enforcement in his state. He has shown a pronounced disinclination to enforce laws against his political allies. He has created the very vacuum that is pulling federal personnel and resources into his state.
At the end of the day, it is actually a good thing that Keith Ellison is in court opposing such federal enforcement. After all, he is the best evidence for the need for enhanced federal enforcement in Minnesota.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” It will be released on Feb. 3 for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
If you can arrest and imprison people for silently praying outside a clinic because it interferes with someones rights you can arrest people who violently enter a church, scare the congregation, interrupt the service and harras the people there. It always is amazing the Democrats hate the precedents they themselves set when they are applied to Democrats.
Praying outside a clinic is not a crime, as long as it is not within the buffer zone. There is such as thing and it has been backed by the Supreme Court. The buffer zone is there to keep people at a reasonable distance from an abortion clinic. People are absolutely free to pray to their heart’s content just outside that buffer zone. Getting inside that zone and refusing to leave when requested by police allows them to arrest you and charge you with violating the law. That is the distinction. You’re not immediately arrested if you are praying inside that zone. But when you’re told to move outside of it and refuse then you’re in violation of the law.
Nobody “violently” entered the church. They just walked in like anyone else is allowed to do so at churches. It’s not a federal offense to interrupt a service or heckle a pastor. At a minimum it’s a misdemeanor charge of disrupting the peace or some other local ordinance. The most this could be described as is an annoyance that happened one time. Republicans are going into hysterics and rage baiting their supporters by making this into some attack on Christians. Never mind that it was more likely the protesters themselves were Christians as well.
What would his reaction have been if a mosque had been invaded to express political opinions?
Do it!
It would have been a misdemeanor charge at a minimum. A violation of a local ordinance or state law. Certainly not a federal offense.
Let’s begin by stipulating some facts. Regardless of what the evil coconspirators Keith Ellison, Mayor Freye, and Governor Walz say, the law, that is, the Constitution, protects religious rights AND free speech rights. When one is used to deprive people of the other, the moving party, that is, the party exercising the “rights” that interfered with the other party exercising its “rights,” is at fault. Simple stuff for those who interpret and/or enforce First Amendment law.
The solution here is not criminal charges but civil charges that can be filed by churchgoers deprived of their worship service that was defiled by others abusing their free speech rights. By making such behavior expensive, the free market will soon extinguish it. The Hilton Hotel chain quickly concluded that barring HSI agents might subject the company to civil lawsuits and quickly corrected its actions.
The Departments of Treasury and Justice are close to identifying the source(s) of funding used by the anarchist rioters, which should reveal the deep pockets needed to attract the civil bar. Remember, the motivation here is not ideology but money, plain and simple, and, of course, a good dollop of TDS thrown in for good measure.
Your house of cards is quite impressive. Don’t let reality set it, it will fall to pieces.
Wrong. The reality is the constitution is the law of the land and commies can screech at it’s defense of individuals all they want (It’s a free and open country after all, unlike every commie craphole).
But you violate others rights at your own detriment. It’s always been the Constitution against it’s opposite: Dirty Murderous Communism. Constitution always wins. Screech weaklings.
JJC,
Thank you for that legal analysis.
That deprivation would have to be more than just one interruption of a service to qualify as a civil right violation. One protest and heckling of a pastor does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The church could have chosen to continue the service at a later time in the day. The church was not prevented from continuing the service. Interrupting a service is at a minimum just rude and a sign of poor judgment.
This man is sick, impeach him today.
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.
I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”
Anon: You must not be from NYC. There, the humor is unique and of the highest quality, with satire reaching sometimes the level of a Jonathan Swift. Enjoy and laugh. As Shakespeare reminded us, there is much truth in jest. A powerful message delivered with a bit of humor goes a long way. It is refreshing after four years of sleepy Biden and his worthless promises and threats. Without his New York humor, Trump would be just another boring politician. I think you’d agree that we have enough of them.
JJC, I reject everything that Anonymous stands for and I am sick of his using the moniker “Anonymous” to hide which particular fool he is, but he is right on this comment. Trump is a moron for writing this at this moment, stupid for wasting political capital when he needs it the most and just too narcissistic to be a leading a party that is facing a daunting electoral landscape.
Trump should be jumping on the church invasion, attacking Ellison and the anti-ICE criminals, holding press conferences, CONTROLLED press conferences, where he explains the need to deport millions and what he is doing on the economy. To be so loud and out front with the Greenland thing, to the point of throwing tariffs around again, is moronic. The Markets will tank today, the news will cover Europe’s reaction and MN will disappear.
The letter is juvenile, stupid, counter-productive and truly a bad sign of his control over his emotions.
To all Trump supporters, and as everyone one who is a regular here knows, I am one, please don’t defend this BS, it is wrong headed and harmful. I am sick of having to defend these actions (like the Trump-Kennedy Center) to friends that are Independent or Democrats because it is indefensible.
hullbobby: I respect and admire your opinions and your passion on this subject today, but I think you misunderstand the real message here and are reacting the way Trump wants you and the rest of the world to react at this point. As Gen. Patton allegedly said when surveying his soon to be vanquished foe, “Rommel, you brilliant bast—d, I read your book!” If you read Trump’s Art of the Deal, it will reveal how the most outlandish opening bid can often be closed on perfectly rational and logical grounds that favor the buyer. The end story here is quite simple: move most of our military bases from Germany to Greenland, cut exclusive deals for oil, minerals, rare earth, etc. and develop some program that shares the wealth we develop with the 57,000 Greenlanders while throwing a bone to the King of Denmark. Sometimes you have to shuffle the deck to get better cards. Don’t despair of the Trumpster. His humor is different, for sure, and not appreciated by all but inside that brilliant mind of his is a true American who wants nothing but the best for us and the world. His idiosyncrasies are peculiar at times, I grant you that, but in the end, he usually ties them together somehow in ways that make sense.
You First Amendment lovers sure do enjoy seeing your political enemies brutalized and oppressed by ICE agents.
They are not political enemies. They are very dangerous convicted criminals that entered the US illegally. ICE does not brutalize them, they use appropriate force to counter the resistance met. Just look at other countries like most Islamic countries, those people are brutalized. I have seen no beating after a suspect is arrested, no kicking after the suspect is down and no beatings to death with a night stick of an unconscious person like Biden’s goons did to Rose Boyland.
“Political enemies”? Are you serious?
Yes. The rhetoric here suggests this. They are not your friends.
Why do you hate America?
Ellison was accused of abusing a woman at a Boston Hotel and the METOO movement rapidly jumped in to help the victim of the abuse. Just kidding, the METOO movement said nothing, the liberal media said nothing and Ellison skated as all Dems skate every time.
Trump gets called out on a lot of hypocrisy, too. Nothing happens, and people still support him, in spite of all he has been exposed for.
Exposed? You have nudies of Trump?
What hypocrisy? You make an accusation but with no evidence. A technique trolls often us.
Um… just like you?
Abused? Liar.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
The irony that the radical left has the freedom to espouse their views in this country under our Constitution doesn’t apply to the likes of him, as he considers himself an elite and imagines he would not be subject to communist subjugation. For blue voters and useful idiots – they have no idea what they are asking for, if they are even aware of what it actually is they are supporting, or what enables them to hold that position in the first place.
Someone, a political fence sitter with no history of radicalism, but also not much acumen in these areas, and very much an older adult, said to me with a straight face recently, that Maybe China isn’t so bad, people there look happy. I replied, they are not allowed by their government to present themselves any other way or face consequences, to which I got ambivalence. I have also seen people taking the heat off of the idea of East Germany.
This is where we are at. Brain rot is real.
James, what you’re describing is what I’ve written about elsewhere as national dysphoria. It’s the condition where a republic loses clarity about its identity as a free people. Not collapse by force, but forfeiture through confusion. Citizens drift into group identity, responsibility gives way to entitlement, and liberty becomes something administered rather than practiced. Nations are rarely lost by conquest. They’re lost when people forget who they are.
@OLLY
Honestly, I think this is something different. It isn’t even dysphoria – it’s almost the opposite: extreme entitlement.
People that have been convinced repercussions are for other people. That somehow their freedoms, quality of life, and aspirations would remain intact, they would simply no longer be subject to having to reconcile any type of cognitive dissonance based on their own personal levels of comfort. They do not understand in any capacity what underlies their freedom to even consider the questions so focused are they on peripheral factors as they relate to same. It is almost infantile in its assumptions.
I understand that with the young and coddled, but older people that used to know better? Not so much. There are many factors at play, but a form of personal zealotry is rapidly replacing common sense.
James, I get what you’re saying and I’ve been trying to figure this out for a long time.
I think Yuri Bezmenov and Mattias Desmet both have the correct explanation. I synthesized their thesis into something I call National Dysphoria. Here is how I describe that:
National dysphoria describes the condition in which a republic loses clarity about its own identity as a free people. It is not merely ignorance of history, but a deeper disorientation in which citizens no longer recognize the moral and civic character required to sustain liberty.
Just as personal dysphoria arises when identity becomes detached from reality, national dysphoria arises when a people become detached from their founding principles, moral inheritance, and constitutional purpose. The result is not sudden collapse, but gradual forfeiture. Citizenship erodes into group identity, responsibility is replaced by entitlement, and liberty is treated as something administered rather than practiced.
This condition spreads through disconnection from history, abandonment of assimilation, and the loss of shared civic habits. When a nation no longer teaches why it is free, it eventually ceases to be free, not by conquest, but by confusion. In such an environment, citizens become easier to manage, not because they are oppressed, but because they are disoriented.
National dysphoria prepares the ground for administrative control, ideological subversion, and mass formation. A people unsure of who they are will accept governance that promises comfort, clarity, and safety in place of self-rule.
Recovery, therefore, cannot begin with policy or party, but with remembrance: the restoration of civic identity, moral responsibility, and the habits of citizenship.
James,
” but a form of personal zealotry . . .”
I think that is it right there. These people truly believe they are fighting against . . . something. It does not help that Democrats and the MSM have screaming, shouting about Trump/MAGA = Nazis for, what? Nearly ten years now? Comparing ICE to the gestapo. Upping the rage rhetoric has fueled into their delusions. A group of anti-ICE tried to stop ICE from arresting a illegal who molested a child. Mention any of those others who have assaulted, raped and murdered women and children by illegals and they “WHATABOUT!!!!”
In Minneapolis, a group of IT guys went to lunch. Some idiot got it into their head they were ICE and notified ICE Watch. One of the IT guys was a member of ICE Watch and got the text they were going to target him and his co-workers. Sure enough, the mob showed up and confronted the IT workers. Of course the mob did not believe the IT workers denying they were ICE, even after the one showed them the ICE Watch app on his phone.
These people have been brainwashed.
These people have been brainwashed.
Upstate, Ideological subversion is the cause. National dysphoria is the effect.
I have a brother in law who fancies himself as an intellectual. In a conversation we had a few years ago about the shift towards socialism and the loss of freedom, he argued in favor socialism using Sweden as an example. He said it all depends on your definition of what socialism is. Malleable definitions do not change reality as much as the left would have us believe.
‘In some ways, Ellison has proven the perfect Antifa Attorney General, a law enforcement officer who supports the mob while denouncing the police.”
While you, and normal people consider this a negative, I suspect the AWFLs, soy boys, trannys, and the hodgepodge of blue haired, tattooed societal freaks and misfits who vote Democrat consider it admirable.
If what happened inside the Capitol was a peaceful protest,
then what is happening in Minneapolis is also a peaceful protest.
Hundreds of people who merely entered the Capitol were charged with trespassing, parading, etc. The point of prosecuting them was to make the process the punishment.
Those are the rules your side created. Now you get to live by them.
Those convicted can be pardoned in 2030, after another anti-American Democrat is elected President.
Capitol = MN church? Recheck your reality.
You mean inviting protesters in who stayed inside the velvet ropes, taking selfies with them, helping one find unlocked doors and then locking them in and beating them? Driving them forward to the inner sanctum and then murdering a small unarmed woman who was trying to not be crushed by the people behind her? I have seen no similar actions from ICE officers.
Ellison should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of Minneapolis on a rail. If anyone should wish to test the flammability of the tar immediately after that happens by tossing a lit match in his direction, I would have no serious objection.
Why?
What’s happening in Minnesota feels like a real-world picture of life without constitutional governance. When enforcement of law is treated as optional, authority collapses, citizens go silent, and the loudest factions fill the vacuum. The Constitution exists to bind power to duty and to protect ordinary people through impartial enforcement. Strip that away, or treat it as negotiable, and what you get isn’t freedom. It’s fragmentation, fear, and abandonment of the very citizens government is meant to serve.
Someone once promised we were five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States. Looking at Minnesota today, this appears to be the outcome of that transformation.
Still writing dystopian nonsense I see.
That’s not a rebuttal, it’s an evasion. And the speed tells me I’m over the target.
No, its an insult. Anon hit the target eh.
OLLY,
Not only is it an evasion of your comment, it is an evasion of reality that you point out.
“Evasion of your comment”? What does even mean? How does one evade a comment? By not reading it I guess.
So the guy, olly, comments, someone responds, and olly claims its not a rebuttal? Now how does a comment now become an argument?
Yes Upstate. Classic troll move: deflect, mock, avoid substance.
OLLY,
Of course. They have too. It is the only thing they have. They cannot or will not see the lawlessness that is on going in Minneapolis, dont forget the fraud, and elected officials are actively encouraging this lawlessness.
Still posting 100 times a day to the point of multi-posting replies to yourself. That is not normal.
Normal? You’re the arbiter of what’s normal?
Yeah, he thinks he’s a lawyer…. LOL
So we have a video that identifies many of the “protesters” and we have a federal law that has been broken. We have an FBI that has proven that it can track down individuals seen in videos to the far corners of the country. Let’s see if Pam Bondi can track down and arrest just one of these criminals.
Billy, that is my issue with the Trump team. Biden, Garland, Frey et al tracked down, arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned Republicans over and over again but Trump, Bondi, Patel and Harmeet keep telling us that the investigation has begun, wheels are turning and then…nothing.
Roger Stone, an elderly man, was perp walked at 6:00 AM in front on alerted CNN cameras and yet we have not seen ONE partisan Democrat in the same boat. I am sick of the Dillon snarky tweets, the press conferences from Patel, the faux tough guy comments by Bondi and then babkas.
What does Stone have to do with the MN church? Delusional as usual.
Analogies are tough…for stupid people.
You should know. So explain your analogy? Bet you won’t respond.
Professor,
We know what and who the causes of the problems in Minnesota are.
We also know what the cure has to be.
The question is when is the President going to decide to carry out his sworn duty and put down the Insurrection?
There is no doubt that is what is going on in Minnesota.
Walz, Ellison, Frey, the Police Chief, the Sheriff of that County, the head of the BCA, the City Council and County Board should all be behind bars awaiting trials in Federal Court or before a Military Tribunal and upon being proven to have obstructed local and federal law…..serve long sentences in Federal Prisons.
In the meanwhile, the Federal Government should surge every asset possible into the area, put in place a cordon all round the County and City and remove every single Illegal Alien they can find and detain. Also, Inspectors from every federal agency should attend to their business and conduct inspections of every work place, commercial vehicle, and audit every Income Tax Return of every person detained and administer fines and penalties for every violation found.
If Minnesota and Minneapolis want to rebel against the Rule of Law….then they should be shown what the Long Arm of the Law is all about.
The longer the culpable are left to foist their evil upon the People the more damage they inflict….that must be cease.
The Democrats and Media shall howl no matter what is done so let them….and let every American see the evil being perpetrated by failing to abide by the State and Federal laws is and who is behind it.
We know what is wrong about Minnesota and we want to see it corrected.
Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to enforce Civil Rights Laws….this is no different.
The danger of allowing this to go on is at some point the People shall decide to do it themselves and that would be a very sad thing to see happen. When the people who do not want to get involved decide they must….legal niceties shall be ignored and the guilty shall be treated appropriately for their attempt to over throw the established government and our founding principles.
One example is a situation years ago in Athens, Tennessee. That was also named the McMinn County War.
In today’s situation there is no need to break into a National Guard Armory as the people are well armed.
Is it going to take such a response by the good people of Minnesota to see Law and Order returned and the lawless brought to heel?
The police are not, the National Guard is not, the Mayor and Governor are not, the State Attorney General is not and the Federal Government is not. The Feds are going around grabbing up Illegal Aliens and “investigating” and Congress is ignoring the matter.
All the while the Democrats are Judge shopping and entering one legal action after another in an effort to tie up federal officers.
Harmeet Dhillon has suggested the FACE Act and the Klan Act as bases for federal prosecutions. I don’t know enough about the elements of these crimes to know if they have been met. My recollection is that Biden’s DoJ used these statutes aggressively to prosecute anti-abortion demonstrators and others. We’ll see reasonably soon whether indictments follow.
“Nekima Levy Armstrong”
That creature is a tribalistic, BLM barbarian — now become an anti-ICE barbarian who violates the Constitutionally protect rights of church goers. She and her foot soldiers enjoy the protection of the MN AG.
Remind me again which is the party of jack-booted thugs.
And a US citizen
Hubert Humphrey, a prior vice president and senator from Minnesota would be turning over in his grave to see what is transpiring in his state. As a young man I admired Mr. Humphrey and even voted for him when he ran for president in 1968. He was one of the main reasons I was a Democrat but there has only been a decline since that time which led me to move to the Republican Party in the 1970’s.
Mr Ellison is strictly an ambulance chaser in high office and I apologize to the ambulance chasers for placing him in their crowd.
Ambulance chaser in high office? That’s an oxymoran.
I can understand voting for HHH in 68, it was a crazy time, but the party has moved very far to the left and it is the party that left you, you didn’t leave the party.
As for Ellison being an ambulance chaser I would say he is much worse. The ambulance chaser tries to get the victim of the car accident to utilize his services in suing the driver of the car that hit him but Ellison would be the attorney that sues the guy that got hit by the car.
HullBobby,
And Ellison would accuse the guy who got hit by the car as impeding the driver of the car’s 1stA rights to hit him.
You probably admired Phil Donahue.
And Geraldo Rivera. Accounts for the crazy in his comment.
“ He is wrong. Protesting outside of the church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting church services and abusing congregants inside the church is conduct, not speech.”
Umm not really, What would be the difference between a very loud protest outside the church that disrupts the service and one inside? According to Turley both would be considered conduct.
Also it was not trespassing since the church is open to all. The FACE act wouldn’t apply either, because protesters did not force their way in or obstruct people from entering or leaving. They just walked in and started what is essentially heckling the ICE pastor. Disrupting the service is not a crime, it’s just an annoyance.
They were not abusing congregants. They were just shouting opposition to the pastor who was an ICE member. FACE specifically prohibits physical obstruction into the protected facility. None of the protesters did that. The Act protects access to an abortion clinic or a place of worship. The whole act is about ensuring access and keeping protesters from blocking access, destroying property, or violence against individuals within. None of that was present. The only thing that was present was speaking against the pastor and that is still protected first amendment activity.
Claims of trespassing are dubious at best since it’s a church where anyone is welcome, supposedly, at this church. Turley never mentions that the protest inside the church was a crime. It would be difficult to use the FACE act to prosecute these protesters since, again, the act is about ensuring access and the protesters were not blocking or preventing anyone from coming in. Disrupting the service is more of an annoyance than a crime or a violation religious freedom. It’s also important to remember that this is but one occurrence due to the fact that the pastor is indeed employed by ICE.
“dubious at best since it’s a church where anyone is welcome, ” It’s private property. SF.
Irrelevant, it’s a place of worship where anyone is welcome to come in. It can’t be trespassing if it was truly a “private” service. Obviously it was not.
As for private property, that’s not quite accurate. A church is tax exempt which makes it more of a community center owned by a religious organization making it more like a private business open to the public. Since it iS a church and generally churches are indeed open to anyone. Just walking in to heckle a pastor is not trespassing. At a minimum it would be disturbing the peace or something similar. At most a misdemeanor. Not even a federal charge would apply because the FACE act is about physical obstruction into the facility, destruction of property, and physical violence. None of that was present.
Churches are generally considered private property in the United States.
Private Ownership: Churches are typically owned by incorporated entities, trustees, or denominational bodies, not by the government. This means they are not public property, even when open to the public for worship.
Right to Control Access: As private property owners, churches have the legal right to set rules for conduct on their premises, restrict access, and remove individuals who disrupt services or violate their policies—such as protestors or disruptive visitors.
Legal Precedent: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) that private property does not become a public forum simply because it is open to the public. A Connecticut appeals court reinforced this in State v. Steinmann (1990), stating that property does not lose its private character merely because the public is invited for designated purposes.
Exceptions and Nuances:
Churches may be excluded from the definition of “places of public accommodation” under certain laws (like the ADA) if they do not rent their facilities to the general public for secular events.
However, if a church hosts a public, secular function (e.g., a wedding or community event), it may fall under such laws, depending on state interpretation.
Eminent domain can apply to church property for public use, but courts weigh the public interest against the church’s First Amendment right to religious freedom and use of its property.
In summary, while churches are open to the public for religious services, they remain private property, and their owners can enforce access and use policies consistent with their religious beliefs and safety standards.
Anon @ 9:10 just destroyed you.
LOL! No he did not. He just pointed out a few things that are highly dependent on whether a decides how to allow access to their property. The majority of the time Churches ARE open to anyone during services. None of what anonymous said changes that fact. The protesters walked in just like anyone can during a service. The only distinction is they came in to heckle and protest the pastor. At a minimum it would be up tot he church to trespass them at the time of the interruption. If the protesters left at the first threat of trespassing then there is nothing the cops could do or the Feds.
The FACE act only protects places of worship from people who are actively trying to block access and destruction of property or violence against individuals. It does nothing for a church that is open to anyone during service and protesters heckle and berate a pastor.
Nothing like a fresh batch of george BS.
“pastor who was an ICE member”? Alleged. BTW, he’s referred to as an “ICE member”, rather pastor.
You sure like to mix fantasy with facts.
It’s not alleged, he IS a supervisors with ICE in Minneapolis. Turley makes a passing comment about that fact.
ICE member? Absence thereof is now a “passing comment” huh?
Just when you think that Mr X couldn’t make a worse argument he seems to manage to pull a little more stupidity out of the stupid well.
Hey X, I hope you and your side continue to defend these actions and even do it again and again as it is political poison for Dems. As these folks get arrested you will see an end to this type of action.
One last thing, since Planned Parenthood is “open to all”, like a church in your lame argument, can Christians go into these “clinics” and blow whistles, yell at people, tell them they are sinning etc? If so then please defend Biden and Garland arresting people for just praying outside of the clinics. Please reply to this question.
Hullbobby, as usual your attempt at comparisons fails on its face. Churches are not the same as private abortion clinics where you have to make an appointment to get inside. I’m sure you knew that, right?
Churches are always open to anyone during services, because it’s what they WANT. For anyone to attend their services meaning anyone can come in. No appointment necessary.
People praying outside a buffer zone are perfectly free to do so. Inside that zone which has been upheld by the Supreme Court is another story. Even praying is not allowed. The buffer zone is there for a reason. You can pray to your heart’s content outside that zone. If you loiter or stand within that zone you CAN be arrested or at a minimum just be removed.
Churches are considered private property in Minnesota under U.S. law, even when open to the public for worship.
This means church property owners retain the right to set rules for conduct on their premises and to remove individuals who violate those rules. The Supreme Court ruled in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) that private property does not become a public forum simply because it is open to the public. A Connecticut appeals court reinforced this principle in State v. Steinmann (1990), stating that property does not lose its private character merely because the public is invited for designated purposes.
In Minnesota, Section 609.28 of the state statutes makes it a gross misdemeanor to intentionally and physically obstruct any individual’s access to or egress from a religious establishment, reinforcing the legal protection of churches as private property.
While protest activity near churches may be constitutionally protected (e.g., peaceful picketing on public sidewalks, handing out leaflets), entering the church building without permission, disrupting worship services, blocking aisles, or using amplified sound to interfere with religious activities constitutes unlawful conduct and may result in trespass or disorderly conduct charges.
Churches also have the right to refuse to provide a platform for messages contrary to their mission, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012), which upheld religious
Thanks. Again george got his dumm ass handed to him.
LOL! Again. Nope.
“ In Minnesota, Section 609.28 of the state statutes makes it a gross misdemeanor to intentionally and physically obstruct any individual’s access to or egress from a religious establishment, reinforcing the legal protection of churches as private property.”
The protesters were not preventing anyone from accessing the church nor anyone was physically obstructing access or egress. That is an important detail.
“ Churches are considered private property in Minnesota under U.S. law, even when open to the public for worship.
This means church property owners retain the right to set rules for conduct on their premises and to remove individuals who violate those rules. The Supreme Court ruled in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) that private property does not become a public forum simply because it is open to the public.”
Correct, but the church did NOT have a rule in place limiting who could enter. Right?
Entering and heckling and berating the ICE pastor was at a minimum a misdemeanor offense. It’s not a federal offense either.
Can I get everyone on this free speech blog to agree with me how nice it is to see anti-ICE protestors exercising thier First Amendment rights? Is it a beautiful sight to behold, to see the First Amendment in action?
thier?
This is what they mean about arguing with fools.
“This is what they mean about arguing with fools.” Um…. This is what they mean about arguing with fools.
Who is “they”?
“. . . anti-ICE protestors exercising thier First Amendment rights?”
There is no such thing as a “right” to violate another person’s rights.
Unless you’re a Leftist with a “noble” goal. Then it’s anything goes.
“There is no such thing as a “right” to violate another person’s rights.” Really? Its called the 1st Amendment.
“Its called the 1st Amendment.”
I must’ve missed the footnote to 1A that says:
And while practicing the right to free speech, an individual may violate the protections afforded by 2A, 3A, 4A . . .
You got finally.
Rabble:
Your rights end where mine begin. You cannot violate another’s 1st amendment rights to further yours. sit down and actually think, or get out of the damn way and stop terrorizing people. Or, third option, you’ll end up being the next chanted name at their riots.
Please note the distinction between speech and conduct. Also, please note that free speech protections apply to all persons; those with whom you agree and those with whom you do not.
Have a nice day
If they want to rally to petition their government for redress, I’m all for it. If they want to denounce ICE, they should face no repercussions. If they want to have a march to raise awareness and persuade the populace to their position, I have no problem with that. Those are all covered by the 1st Amendment.
Obstructing law enforcement attempting to arrest criminals is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Storming a church to intimidate the parishioners is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Threatening to beat pedestrians for wearing the wrong shirt if not covered by the 1st Amendment. Harassing diners because the mob believed they were ICE is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
The protesters have the 1st Amendment, but so do the people they are attacking. Your right to protest under the 1st Amendment ends when it infringes someone else’s 1st Amendment rights.
If?
So can I come to your house and protest in your yard?
You won’t know until you try it. Make sure your health Ins. is active.
So you’re going to physically harm me for protesting in your yard but you defend invading a church to protest? Make it make sense.
Ellis and his followers, are the epitome of insurgent. His efforts have been to subvert the Constitution and the Laws that do not favor his Communists views. The attack on a House of Worship and the congregation crosses every Red Line in common decency and the established Laws. It is time we the people begin treating this as the attempted Civil War that it is.
Laws? What laws please?
How about the FACE Act dumb ass?
Someeody is really angry this morning. Hungover again?
How about this: The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1994 that prohibits the use of force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with individuals seeking or providing reproductive health services, such as abortion or fertility care. It also protects access to places of religious worship, ensuring people can exercise their First Amendment right to religious freedom without intimidation or obstruction.
Ellison’s a Communist. He’s one measure of how screwed up Minnesota has become. WTH is wrong with Minnesota?!
Communist? So what. He’s also an American.
Hey Anonymous, would you say “Nazi, so what, he’s also an American?
Yes. Even idiots can be an US citizen. You’re the obvious example.
Intelligent Americans don’t elect Communists to public office. Here’s looking at you New York City and Minnesota.
Intelligent Americans don’t elect? What a delusional comment walt.
Sorry commie! This will never be a socialist country! Never mind communist. Keep dreaming.
sorry, no. YOU and i, we are capitalist to the bone, thank god. You, a successful, top 1% in the world, capitalist moron! Keep buying stuff capitalist!
Not an argument.
“Not an argument.”. Not an argument.