DOJ investigating after ICE protest at St. Paul church. An expert breaks down laws at play
Cities Church is seen on Summit Avenue in St. Paul on Monday as a St. Paul police squad waits outside the building. The church was quiet a day after anti-ICE protesters disrupted a Sunday worship service, interrupting the gathering to voice opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in the Twin Cities.
Kerem Yücel | MPR News
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Audio transcript
NINA MOINI: The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into a protest that disrupted a church service in St. Paul on Sunday morning. Dozens of protesters entered City's Church. One of the church's pastors, David Easterwood, leads the St. Paul ICE field office. Leading the protest with civil rights lawyer and prominent local activist Nekima Levy Armstrong.
The DOJ says it's looking at violations of what's called the FACE, F-A-C-E, Act. It's also looking at the possibility of charging journalist Don Lemon, who was reporting on the protest, with the KKK Act. So joining us to explain these two federal laws is Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. Thanks for your time as always, Jane.
JANE KIRTLEY: Thank you.
NINA MOINI: These different acts and laws are coming to the forefront now, and people want to what is this. What does all of this mean? So if you could break it down for us, let's start with the FACE Act. Stands for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. Tell us about that law if you would.
JANE KIRTLEY: This law was enacted in 1994. It's been used by the Justice Department to deal with individuals who have tried to interfere with patients and others who are trying to enter facilities that provide reproductive health. And there have been quite a number of cases that the Justice Department has brought over the years. There's another clause in the law though, and that's what is in play here because it also prohibits property damage or impeding somebody who's trying to exercise their First Amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of worship.
And it has a whole variety of penalties ranging from criminal to civil as well as injunction, and judges have a lot of discretion about exactly what kind of penalties they would levy. It goes from six months in jail to up to 10 years in jail, depending upon the severity of the activity.
NINA MOINI: So you mentioned it had to do more with these clinics but also had to do with religious settings. Let's talk about the KKK Act. What does that law say?
JANE KIRTLEY: Well, this is an old law, 1871, that was enacted as you would expect during Reconstruction. It's known as the Ku Klux Klan Act or the Enforcement Act. And in this case, it's intended to make it a federal crime to deny any group or individual any of the rights, privileges, immunities, or protection named in the Constitution. And it gives the federal government quite a bit of authority to deal with this kind of situation, but this is really not a law that has been used much in modern history.
It's also been amended several times because there were genuine First Amendment issues having to do with the right to protest and engage in political speech. But it is a law that at least on paper has teeth, but it's not something that has been used much in modern history.
NINA MOINI: I feel like I hear about that a lot in this second Trump administration, laws that are-- people will say it hasn't really been used that way or it hasn't been used in a long time. But the laws are written the way they are and up for interpretation for different people. So what do you think would be the outcome of all of this? Do you think that there-- you're saying there's some teeth here.
JANE KIRTLEY: Well, there is on paper. I think in terms of the protesters' activities, to me, this is a great example of what I would characterize as overkill in the sense that here in Minnesota, we have criminal laws, misdemeanors, for the most part, dealing with trespass and disrupting things in facilities that are not generally open to the public, which would certainly suffice if the church wished to make a complaint along those lines.
As far as the Ku Klux Klan Act is concerned, what's interesting to me about it is that law is really aimed at conspiracy. There's a reason it's called the Ku Klux Klan act. And as I understand it, at least somebody in justice is suggesting that Don Lemon is a co-conspirator because allegedly he had knowledge that this group was going to go into the church and engage in disruptive activity.
That is going to be really hard to square with the Supreme Court decision from 2010 in a case called Holder versus Humanitarian Law Project, which was construing a statute dealing with giving material support to terrorist groups. And there had been a lot of concern in journalistic circles that publishing a story that a terrorist could use might be deemed material support.
Well, in the Holder case, the Supreme Court said no. If you're reporting, if you're expressing ideas that's not material support. That can't be seen as conspiracy. It's a narrow exception. But the question would be whether there is actually evidence that Don Lemon was doing anything other than just reporting on the activities that day at the church.
NINA MOINI: Jane, thank you so much for your expertise. Really appreciate it.
JANE KIRTLEY: My pleasure. Thank you.
NINA MOINI: Jane Kirtley is a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota.
The DOJ says it's looking at violations of what's called the FACE, F-A-C-E, Act. It's also looking at the possibility of charging journalist Don Lemon, who was reporting on the protest, with the KKK Act. So joining us to explain these two federal laws is Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. Thanks for your time as always, Jane.
JANE KIRTLEY: Thank you.
NINA MOINI: These different acts and laws are coming to the forefront now, and people want to what is this. What does all of this mean? So if you could break it down for us, let's start with the FACE Act. Stands for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. Tell us about that law if you would.
JANE KIRTLEY: This law was enacted in 1994. It's been used by the Justice Department to deal with individuals who have tried to interfere with patients and others who are trying to enter facilities that provide reproductive health. And there have been quite a number of cases that the Justice Department has brought over the years. There's another clause in the law though, and that's what is in play here because it also prohibits property damage or impeding somebody who's trying to exercise their First Amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of worship.
And it has a whole variety of penalties ranging from criminal to civil as well as injunction, and judges have a lot of discretion about exactly what kind of penalties they would levy. It goes from six months in jail to up to 10 years in jail, depending upon the severity of the activity.
NINA MOINI: So you mentioned it had to do more with these clinics but also had to do with religious settings. Let's talk about the KKK Act. What does that law say?
JANE KIRTLEY: Well, this is an old law, 1871, that was enacted as you would expect during Reconstruction. It's known as the Ku Klux Klan Act or the Enforcement Act. And in this case, it's intended to make it a federal crime to deny any group or individual any of the rights, privileges, immunities, or protection named in the Constitution. And it gives the federal government quite a bit of authority to deal with this kind of situation, but this is really not a law that has been used much in modern history.
It's also been amended several times because there were genuine First Amendment issues having to do with the right to protest and engage in political speech. But it is a law that at least on paper has teeth, but it's not something that has been used much in modern history.
NINA MOINI: I feel like I hear about that a lot in this second Trump administration, laws that are-- people will say it hasn't really been used that way or it hasn't been used in a long time. But the laws are written the way they are and up for interpretation for different people. So what do you think would be the outcome of all of this? Do you think that there-- you're saying there's some teeth here.
JANE KIRTLEY: Well, there is on paper. I think in terms of the protesters' activities, to me, this is a great example of what I would characterize as overkill in the sense that here in Minnesota, we have criminal laws, misdemeanors, for the most part, dealing with trespass and disrupting things in facilities that are not generally open to the public, which would certainly suffice if the church wished to make a complaint along those lines.
As far as the Ku Klux Klan Act is concerned, what's interesting to me about it is that law is really aimed at conspiracy. There's a reason it's called the Ku Klux Klan act. And as I understand it, at least somebody in justice is suggesting that Don Lemon is a co-conspirator because allegedly he had knowledge that this group was going to go into the church and engage in disruptive activity.
That is going to be really hard to square with the Supreme Court decision from 2010 in a case called Holder versus Humanitarian Law Project, which was construing a statute dealing with giving material support to terrorist groups. And there had been a lot of concern in journalistic circles that publishing a story that a terrorist could use might be deemed material support.
Well, in the Holder case, the Supreme Court said no. If you're reporting, if you're expressing ideas that's not material support. That can't be seen as conspiracy. It's a narrow exception. But the question would be whether there is actually evidence that Don Lemon was doing anything other than just reporting on the activities that day at the church.
NINA MOINI: Jane, thank you so much for your expertise. Really appreciate it.
JANE KIRTLEY: My pleasure. Thank you.
NINA MOINI: Jane Kirtley is a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota.
Download transcript (PDF)
Transcription services provided by 3Play Media.
