Why Minnesota Prosecutors Would Have Upheld the First Amendment if They Had Charged Church Protesters

The freedom to protest does not include the freedom to shut down worship

At first glance, the decision by St. Paul, Minnesota, officials not to bring state charges against anti-ICE protesters who disrupted a church service might sound like a victory for the First Amendment. After all, the right to protest government policies is one of the nation's most cherished constitutional freedoms.

But a closer look reveals something troubling. In elevating one First Amendment right, state officials diminished another – the free exercise of religion.

The controversy stems from a January protest at Cities Church in St. Paul. Protesters opposed to federal immigration enforcement entered the church during a worship service, interrupting religious observances and chanting slogans directed at a pastor who also serves as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. Federal authorities subsequently charged dozens of participants with crimes related to interfering with religious worship, but the city recently announced it would not pursue additional state charges.

No one disputes that activists had every right to criticize ICE policies. They could have demonstrated on the sidewalk outside the church. They could have held signs, given speeches, distributed literature, or organized rallies. The First Amendment robustly protects all of those activities.

What they did instead was enter a house of worship during services and interrupt congregants who had gathered for prayer and religious observance. According to federal prosecutors, the demonstration amounted to a coordinated effort to interfere with the congregation's ability to worship.

If that conduct is treated as little more than protected protest activity, the constitutional balance begins to tilt.

Imagine if activists stormed into a synagogue during Sabbath services, interrupted Friday prayers at a mosque, or disrupted a funeral Mass at a Catholic church. Most Americans would immediately recognize that something more than ordinary protest was occurring. The issue would not be whether the demonstrators had opinions they were entitled to express. The issue would be whether worshippers retained their own constitutional right to practice their faith free from intimidation and disruption – along with their right to free association.

The Free Exercise Clause is not a constitutional afterthought. It appears in the same amendment as the protections for speech, press, assembly, and petition. The Framers did not rank these rights in order of importance. They understood them to be mutually reinforcing liberties that must coexist.

That is why free speech rights do not create a license to silence others. Protesters may express their views, but they generally may not prevent worshippers from worshipping.

The First Amendment is strongest when all of its guarantees are protected together. A nation committed to free speech should welcome vigorous protest. A nation committed to religious liberty should also ensure that churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples remain places where Americans can worship without organized disruption.
​
When one First Amendment freedom is used to trample another, the Constitution itself comes away diminished.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS