Protesters disrupt worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, January 18, 2026

You may remember that, back on January 18 of this year, a group of anti-ICE protesters entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and began disrupting the worship service by shouting slogans, such as “Hands up, don’t shoot!”, screaming in peoples’ faces, even intimidating children who were present with their families. This was shortly after the deadly shooting of Renee Good, an anti-ICE protester who was killed by an ICE agent when she, he claimed, attempted to run him down with her car. Cities Church is an Evangelical Christian church in St. Paul and the protesters picked that church to stage their anti-ICE protest because the pastor of Cities Church, David Easterwood, leads the local ICE field office that oversees operations in St. Paul. In most clear-thinking minds, the protest that disrupted the church service was a clear violation of the right of citizens to worship freely without harassment. Don Lemon, formerly with CNN, was on site reporting on the protest.

On June 2, St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao announced that she would not file charges against any of the protesters. She simply refused to prosecute them. While she said there was insufficient evidence to convict, she also spoke of protecting the rights of citizens to “peacefully protest.” If the protest at Cities Church in January was a peaceful protest, then Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman were just a more interesting incarnation of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson. I’ve no idea what videos of the protest Ms. Kao watched, but the videos I saw were of aggressive protesters violently harassing people, including children, who only wanted to worship peacefully. Apparently, in Minnesota, the non-existent right to violently protest ICE trumps the actual, constitutional right to worship freely. Furthermore, in an interview on FOX News, Pastor Easterwood reported that the protests were continuing to this day, only that the protesters remained outside the church, harassing and shouting at people entering the church. The Department of Justice has pressed charges against 38 protesters and offered plea deals to 29 of them to reduce the charges from felonies to misdemeanors. As of the end of July, none of those offered plea deals have accepted. It seems those charged plan to plead not guilty and are hoping that the federal prosecutors will either run out of steam or mismanage the process to the point where a judge feels obliged to drop the charges.

In response, at least partially, to the circumstances surrounding the action at Cities Church in St. Paul, two Congressmen, Brad Knott (R-NC) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) have introduced a bill that would make it a crime to knowingly disrupt or impede people from attending a religious service.

The text of the bill says that disrupting or impeding people from attending a religious service includes demonstrations taking place within 100 feet “from any pedestrian or vehicular entryway of any house of worship, during the period beginning 1 hour before the start of and ending 1 hour after the conclusion of a scheduled religious service.” Notice, this is not a bill that makes it a crime to protest, even to protest at a church. It makes it a crime to knowingly disrupt or impede people from attending a religious service. Presumably, attending a religious service includes participating in that service freely and without hindrance. There are plenty of activities in which protesters can legitimately participate, including carrying signs, announcing slogans, hoisting flags and banners, reading proclamations, etc. I spent plenty of time in my younger years participating in peaceful protests, sometimes including getting arrested for civil disobedience. But the emphasis must be placed on civil. One person’s right to protest does not trump another person’s right to participate in legal, constitutionally-protected activity. Freedom of religion is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. If people do not have the right to worship freely and peacefully, then that is a sure harbinger of respect for other rights being deemed optional.

Every right is limited. Your right to swing your arms through the air ends where my nose begins. Even the right to life is limited. If you become a lethal threat to another, that person’s right to life materializes in his acts of legitimate self-defense, and may include taking your life if that’s the only way to stop you from taking theirs. The right to worship freely and peacefully is limited, though only in extreme cases, when public safety demands. So, if your church is in a flood zone and the waters are barrelling down the mountain, you have no right to defy the authorities and meet in that church. Why not? It’s your life! Because, while your life is your own, it is not simply your own. And the resources the larger community may have to expend saving you gives them the authority to tell you, “You cannot worship here today because the flood waters are rising!” That’s why laws requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets are not a violation of one’s personal liberty. The resources the larger community will be obliged to expend saving your life after your head gets cracked open are limited. So, the community has the authority to say, “You must wear a helmet around here because we would rather spend those resources saving the lives of children than in saving your sorry self from the consequences of your stupid decisions.” The right to protest is also limited, especially by the rights of others. You have a right to protest the actions of governments and individuals. You do not have the right to protest in such a way that you prevent others from acting on their rights. You may decide to participate in a strike. You may excoriate people who cross the picket line, thus making it more difficult for you to attain the goals of the strike. But you have no right to physically harm people or even prevent them from going to work.

City Attorney Kao reneged on her promise to protect all of the citizens of St. Paul. She had a responsibility to enforce the laws, and she chose not to. Why? Probably because she chose sides, and Cities Church was not on the side she chose. That is a shame. It’s also a scandal, because it teaches people that, even those who take an oath to protect the rights of everyone, may decide to protect the rights of only some, and neglect to protect the rights of others, because he or she doesn’t like what those others stand for. One of the greatest examples of fulfilling one’s duty to all is that of John Adams, long before he became president, and even long before he became a revolutionary. At the Boston Massacre, in March 1770, British soldiers in Boston opened fire on a group of citizens who were taunting them and, some witnesses testified, throwing snow, clubs, rocks, bottles, and whatever else they could get their hands on at the soldiers. Five people were killed and six others injured. Eight soldiers and their captain would be tried. The captain, a man named Preston, was tried first. If Preston was found guilty of giving the order to fire, his men would be exonerated for merely following orders. But if he were found innocent, his men would be tried for murder, for no order having been given to fire upon the crowd.

John Adams was approached by loyalist citizens and asked to defend Preston and, should it come down to it, his soldiers. Many other attorneys had turned down the request to defend the British soldiers. But Adams, already highly respected as an attorney in Boston, agreed to take the case. Adams responded to the request with these words: I had no hesitation in answering that Council ought to be the very last thing that an accused Person should want in a free Country … and that every Lawyer must hold himself responsible not only to his Country, but to the highest and most infallible of all Trybunals for the Part he should Act.” In simpler terms, everyone has a right to a fair trial, and everyone has a right to be respresented by council that has his or her best interest in mind. But not only that. Every lawyer must take his or her reponsibity to uphold the law, to recognize the rights of citizens and defend those rights. This responsibility is one the lawyer has to his or her country, but also to God, “that most infallible of all Trybunals.” Preston’s trial lasted six days, and he was found not guilty due to lack of sufficient evidence that he had ever given an order to fire. Next came the trial of the soldiers, and Adam defended them, as well. Of the eight soldiers, six were acquitted and two were found guilty of manslaughter. By applying an antiquated rule of British law, the sentences of the two soldiers found guilty was reduced from capital punishment to having their right thumbs branded. Adams did many other things over the course of his life and career that were less than benevolent or worthy of praise. But no one can tarnish the great service he gave to his country in defending the British soldiers from the Boston Massacre and proving that, in America, a man with even the entire population against him, could still get a fair trial.

Ms. Kao reneged on her responsibility as a public servant. She who was supposed to be impartial in her responsibility to uphold the law for the sake of all chose sides. Minnesota, and our country, are the worse for it.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.