Explainer-What does a law protecting abortion clinics have to do with Don Lemon?

By Daniel Wiessner

Jan 30 (Reuters) – Journalist Don Lemon has been arrested for his involvement in a protest at a Minnesota church and charged by U.S. prosecutors with violating an obscure 1994 law that has been used chiefly to crack down on demonstrations at abortion clinics. 

WHAT IS THE FACE ACT?

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, prohibits the use of force, threats or obstruction to intentionally interfere with a person seeking or providing an abortion or other reproductive health services, as well as those exercising their right to religious freedom at places of worship. Democratic lawmakers, including then-Representative and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, first proposed the law in response to rising violence against abortion providers.    

Violations can result in criminal penalties, with first-time non-violent offenses punishable by up to six months in prison and a $10,000 fine. The U.S. Justice Department can also file civil lawsuits alleging violations and seeking thousands of dollars in fines. A court can order violators to stop the unlawful conduct. 

HOW DID DON LEMON ALLEGEDLY VIOLATE THE LAW?

Lemon, an independent journalist and former CNN anchor, livestreamed a demonstration earlier this month that interrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, protesting President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in the area. Lemon, an outspoken critic of Trump, can be seen arguing with a parishioner about immigration enforcement.

Lemon is charged with violating an 1871 law originally designed to combat the Ku Klux Klan by conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights, and violating the FACE Act by obstructing access to a house of worship. Federal agents also arrested three other people, including independent journalist Georgia Fort, and charged them with violating the FACE Act in connection with the church protest. 

WHAT ARE LEMON’S POSSIBLE DEFENSES?

Lemon has said he was at the demonstration as a journalist. His lawyers have already invoked the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of the press, in his defense.

To prove a violation of the FACE Act, prosecutors must show that a defendant specifically intended to block access to a reproductive health facility or place of worship and did so through threats, physical obstruction or violence. Lemon could argue that his intent was to document the protest and not to participate.

HOW COMMON ARE FACE ACT CASES?

FACE Act cases involving the obstruction of religious worship are virtually unheard of. According to the office of Republican Representative Chip Roy of Texas, who has sponsored a bill to repeal the FACE Act, the Justice Department brought 211 cases alleging violations of the law between 1994 and 2024 and all but six of them were against anti-abortion protesters and activists. None involved houses of worship. Roy and other critics of the law say that Democratic administrations have used it selectively to protect abortion clinics and providers while ignoring protests and attacks at pregnancy planning centers where women are discouraged from having abortions.

HAS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MADE CHANGES TO HOW THE LAW IS ENFORCED?

The Trump administration has curbed prosecutions of anti-abortion activists under the law, but Lemon’s case signals that the FACE Act could be repurposed to target critics of Trump’s agenda, including members of the press. In a memo days after Trump, a Republican, took office last year, the Justice Department said that it would bring abortion-related actions under the FACE Act only in extraordinary circumstances, including cases involving death or serious property damage, and that state and local prosecutors could handle more routine cases.

In September, the Justice Department sued six individuals and two groups for their involvement in a 2024 protest at a New Jersey synagogue, alleging violations of the FACE Act. Officials said at the time that they believed it was the first case involving a house of worship brought under the FACE Act. 

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Lisa Shumaker)