Minnesota Protest Inspires State Laws Protecting Worship: What to Know

A number of states have passed or considered laws protecting places of worship after protesters disrupting a church service in Minnesota gained national attention.

Legislators in four Republican-led states have either enacted or are near finalization of legislation that creates greater penalties for persons responsible for these types of disruptions.

The laws add to the Department of Justice’s efforts to prosecute such activity using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Additional proposals have also been brought forward in several other states, at least one county in New York, and at the federal level.

Here’s what to know about the changes.

Minnesota Incident

The sanctity of houses of worship came into the spotlight early this year when former CNN host Don Lemon and others disrupted a Minnesota church service on Jan. 18.

Lemon and several others were subsequently arrested for disrupting the service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Video footage of the event showed demonstrators in the church chanting slogans, including “Justice for Renee Good,” referring to a woman shot by federal agents in connection with Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) eventually charged more than 30 individuals in connection with the church protest.

Lemon and the others arrested have pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing. Lemon has claimed that the protests were an exercise of the demonstrators’ federally protected rights and were not in violation of any laws. 

They protesters were charged under the FACE Act and a law prohibiting conspiracy to deprive others of their civil rights. The dispute touched on a longstanding debate over how prosecutors can use the FACE Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law was originally intended to allow obstruction-free access to abortion clinics, but it also extends to churches and other religious institutions, banning interference with religious worship.

It prohibits “the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt 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.”

State Legislation

Following the Minnesota protests, FACE provided a minimum legal definition of impermissible conduct across the country. However, state legislation has been either drafted or signed into law in Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, and other states, adding to the penalties and legal consequences offenders could face.

Idaho

In Idaho, HB 615 amends Idaho’s “disturbing the peace” statute by expanding it to include disruptions targeting churches, places of worship, and religious gatherings.

The change was made to explicitly include “places of worship” and “religious gatherings” and to cover conduct that disrupts worship services. The bill was signed into law on March 20, and will become effective on July 1.

Louisiana

In Louisiana, new legislation states explicitly, “The intentional interference with a scheduled worship service undermines” religious freedom protections. That legislation is meant to protect those attending worship from disruptions and intimidation.

It also references the FACE Act protections, and says it is “a compelling interest of this state to protect the ability of its people to meet and assemble for the exercise of religious worship.” It creates criminal penalties for those who intentionally disrupt services, which increase if bodily injury occurs.

Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, legislation authored by state Sen. Todd Gollihare now “strengthens and [clarifies] penalties for intentionally disturbing or disrupting worship services.” It protects all religious gatherings from disruption.

The state Senate bill specifically ties the legislation to the recent events, saying it was created in “the wake of recent harassment and disruptions at places of worship across the country.”

The bill was signed into law on Feb. 6.

Kansas

In Kansas, HB 2018 will become law without the governor’s signature, according to the Kansas legislature’s most recent update.

The legislation creates crimes for “interference with the conduct of a religious assembly” and “aggravated interference with the conduct of a religious assembly.”

Some lawmakers, such as Oklahoma Senate Democratic Leader Julia Kirt, are asking questions about how this kind of law could be interpreted going forward. She said she is “concerned about some of the ambiguous language,” about how these changes could be implemented.

Other Actions

Other states have made similar moves, though their actions are either narrower in scope, or not yet as advanced.

South Dakota, Minnesota, New York, and Tennessee have all taken some step toward enhancing the protections for interference with religious worship.

Additionally, in Nassau County, New York, a separate measure was created to enforce the protection of First Amendment rights and extend protection for worshipers.

However, a lawsuit filed on behalf of two Long Islanders is challenging the Nassau County legislation. The ACLU of New York filed the case, saying that the law prohibiting protest in close proximity to houses of worship itself violates the First Amendment and due process.

New Federal Legislation

In Congress, there is also an effort to create the same changes with the introduction of national legislation. The Safeguarding Access to Congregations and Religious Establishments from Disruption (SACRED) Act is being shepherded through the federal legislature.

“No one deserves to be harassed or intimidated, especially on their way to their place of worship,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said. “We have a responsibility to address that fear in a thoughtful, targeted way that protects our constituents while balancing the First Amendment right to peacefully protest.” 

The bipartisan legislation was cosponsored by Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), who said, “Every American deserves to practice their faith free from fear, intimidation, or harassment … This commonsense legislation draws a clear line: intimidation and threats have no place in our communities.”