Minnesota’s top law enforcement officer just told worshippers they must tolerate mob disruptions of their church services—but a renowned constitutional scholar says that’s dead wrong and federal prosecution is entirely justified.
Story Snapshot
- Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison claims anti-ICE activists who disrupted church services engaged in protected First Amendment activity with no federal prosecution grounds
- George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley directly refutes Ellison’s legal analysis, stating multiple federal laws apply to the conduct
- Justice Department planning criminal subpoenas for Ellison, Governor Tim Walz, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
- Media personality Don Lemon reportedly participated in the church disruption and questioned congregants’ theology
- Turley argues Ellison’s refusal to prosecute represents selective enforcement that violates his duty to apply laws without favoritism
State Attorney General Defends Church Disruption as Free Speech
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison defended protesters who disrupted services at St. Paul’s Cities Church, declaring their conduct constituted protected First Amendment activity. Appearing on CNN’s OutFront with Erin Burnett in mid-January, Ellison insisted there are no federal grounds for prosecution. He later told Don Lemon’s podcast that such disruptions are “something you gotta live with” in a free society. Ellison specifically rejected application of the FACE Act and Ku Klux Klan Act to the incident, claiming these federal statutes don’t apply to church disruptions by anti-ICE activists.
Minn. AG Keith Ellison has reacted to the massive state fraud scandal with yet another cheesy Democratic video https://t.co/vwpvjXy6Fz. The "Scam Stopper Showdown" is reminiscent of the equally painful "Choose your fighter" video of Democratic members… https://t.co/6PvDSW6qcE
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 22, 2025
Constitutional Scholar Dismantles Ellison’s Legal Claims
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley published a detailed legal analysis directly contradicting Ellison’s position. Turley drew a critical distinction that Ellison ignored: “Protesting outside of the church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting church services and abusing congregants inside the church is conduct, not speech.” This separation between protected expression and unlawful conduct forms the foundation of Turley’s argument that federal prosecution is legally sound. Turley further contends that multiple federal laws could apply to the protesters’ actions, though Ellison claims none exist.
Turley’s rebuke extends beyond mere legal disagreement to concerns about selective law enforcement. As Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer, Ellison has a constitutional duty to enforce laws without favoritism. By refusing to prosecute activists who align with his political views while churches and their congregations suffer disruption, Ellison creates what Turley describes as a “vacuum” that pulls federal authorities into state matters. This represents a fundamental failure of state-level prosecutorial responsibility that undermines the rule of law and religious liberty protections that conservatives have long defended as foundational American values.
Federal Investigation Targets Minnesota Officials
The Justice Department is escalating its response by planning criminal subpoenas for Ellison himself, along with Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. This federal criminal investigation signals the Trump administration’s unwillingness to allow state officials to shelter lawbreakers from accountability. The timing is significant—Ellison’s public defense of the protesters came just as federal authorities were preparing to examine whether state officials have obstructed enforcement of federal immigration laws. This represents exactly the kind of federal-state tension that arises when Democratic state leaders refuse to uphold basic legal protections.
Media Figure’s Role Raises Questions About Impartiality
Don Lemon, a media personality, reportedly participated in or filmed the church disruption and questioned congregants about their theology during the incident. His subsequent hosting of Ellison on his podcast to defend the protesters raises serious questions about journalistic ethics and coordination between activists and sympathetic media figures. Organizer Nekima Levy Armstrong of the Racial Justice Network also criticized churchgoers’ theology and hearts, revealing that this wasn’t merely protest against government policy but an assault on religious believers exercising their faith. Such targeting of houses of worship represents the kind of government-sanctioned religious persecution that should alarm anyone who values constitutional protections.
The broader implications extend far beyond one disrupted church service. If state attorneys general can simply declare unlawful conduct to be protected speech based on political alignment, then property rights, religious freedom, and equal application of laws become meaningless. Ellison’s position would create a two-tiered justice system where favored groups face no consequences while others suffer prosecution for identical or lesser conduct. This erodes the foundational principle that America is a nation of laws, not men—a principle conservatives recognize as essential to preserving ordered liberty and preventing tyranny.
Sources:
AG Ellison: Disrupting That Church Was First Amendment Activity – Hot Air
