Legal advocates are urging lawmakers to reconsider or repeal the federal Free Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act following recent anti-ICE protests that disrupted a church service in Minnesota.
The calls for reform come after an incident on Jan. 18 in St. Paul, where a group of protesters interrupted a church service while demonstrating against immigration enforcement activity in the state. The protest has renewed debate about whether the federal law should apply more broadly to disruptions at houses of worship.
Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 to address violence and obstruction targeting abortion clinics. The law makes it a federal crime to intimidate, injure, or interfere with individuals seeking or providing reproductive health services. It also includes protections for houses of worship.
Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, said the statute historically has been used primarily in cases involving abortion facilities rather than incidents at churches or other religious institutions.
However, the recent disruption at a St. Paul church has brought new attention to how the law could be applied in situations involving religious services.
Former CNN reporter Don Lemon was present at the Minnesota protest and reported on the demonstration as it unfolded. According to federal officials, he has since been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the incident.
Some legal scholars argue the FACE Act goes beyond the federal government’s constitutional authority and should be reconsidered.
Matthew Cavedon, director of the Project for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, said he questions whether the federal government should intervene in cases that could otherwise be handled by state law enforcement.
“I am skeptical just at a gut level that there is enough of a breakdown in law and order at the state level here that people are routinely disrupting religious services with total impunity from the states to justify this becoming a federal crime,” Cavedon said.
Others point to what they describe as uneven enforcement of the law.
Erin Hawley, counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the FACE Act has often been used in prosecutions involving pro-life activists demonstrating outside abortion facilities.
She cited cases in which individuals faced significant prison sentences for actions such as blocking access to clinic entrances.
“The historic pattern of using that statute to enforce it in a one-sided way I think is something that should give us all pause,” Hawley said.
Critics also argue that enforcement decisions could vary depending on the political priorities of the administration in power.
During the Biden administration, federal data shows 24 individuals were charged with FACE Act violations over four years, including 22 pro-life activists.
Hawley warned that future administrations could take a different approach by focusing more on protests that disrupt religious services.
Advocates say the situation highlights broader concerns about federal overreach and whether Congress should revisit the law.
Some are calling for the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress to overturn the FACE Act entirely and replace it with clearer protections for religious institutions and individual rights.
“The equal protection clause says that every person is entitled to the equal protection of the laws,” Cavedon said. “I would overturn [the FACE Act] and have there be more robust federal protection for individual rights when states fail to provide them.”
