A law previously used against Christian pro-lifers could now be aimed toward anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activists allegedly caught on video storming a Minnesota church.

Legal experts who have seen the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) used as a tool for and against Christians spoke to the Daily Caller about its history. The Trump administration is considering using a law against activists who allegedly disrupted a church service Jan. 18. (RELATED: Left-Wing Agitators Served Pam Bondi Perfect Opportunity To Reclaim Her Reputation)

Experts told the Caller that the administration is now invoking an often-overlooked provision of the law to counter religious persecution.

The FACE Act criminalizes intentionally hurting, intimidating, interfering with or obstructing people from “obtaining or providing reproductive health services” or “exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,” according to the law’s summary. It was passed in 1994 during former President Bill Clinton’s administration

It returned to national attention Sunday after Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the DOJ Civil Rights Division is “investigating the potential violations of the federal FACE Act” following livestreamed footage showing activists marching into a church and allegedly interrupting services in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The @CivilRights is investigating the potential violations of the federal FACE Act by these people desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshippers. @AGPamBondi https://t.co/uZBBv1iuuH

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 18, 2026

Senior Pastor, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver told the Caller that for charges to stick, plaintiffs must demonstrate intimidation — something he alleged was “pretty obvious” based on the “damning information” in the livestream, particularly once protesters entered the sanctuary during the service.

Senior Counsel for First Liberty Jeremy Dys agreed, saying it appeared “very difficult, if not impossible, for these members to retreat from their house of worship, nor should they be required to do so.”

“[T]he FACE Act can have some significant financial penalties, but also injunctive relief and specifically criminal penalties as well,” Staver said. “I suspect that [the DOJ] would bring some criminal charges in this case.”

Dys argued the church itself may have an independent cause of action and went so far as to offer advice to the pastor. He said damages could include compensation for losses incurred during the disruption or civil penalties up to $5,000.

He added that Minnesota’s attorney general could bring the strongest case but expressed doubt the office would do so, saying he believes that it “would rather not employ the law to protect houses of worship and places of worship in instances like this.”

Dhillon also told political commentator Benny Johnson that they prosecutors are also considering charges under the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, a law aimed at enforcing the 14th Amendment.

Staver said former CNN host Don Lemon, who claimed he followed the crowd into the church for journalistic purposes, could face liability under both statutes if he was aware of the plan to disrupt the service.

“He clearly was part of this,” Staver alleged to the Caller.

Dys said Lemon would not be able to “hide behind his journalistic credentials” if evidence indicated coordination with the protesters.

Lemon denied any affiliation with the group in a video statement Monday, saying he did not know the protesters were headed to the church.

“It’s called journalism. First Amendment, all that stuff,” Lemon continued. “For you people who believe in the First Amendment absolutist, there you go.”

However, Dys said First Amendment protections do not extend to conduct that infringes on others’ constitutional rights, including religious worship.

“We are a nation that values free speech and religious liberty,” Dys said, adding that both rights carry “natural limitations.”

For that reason, Dys told the Caller that “it’s a very good thing that this law exists to reinforce the important principle of religious freedom. It needs to be used judiciously, of course.”

Both experts turned to the broader scope of the FACE act’s previous usage as well as how it could potentially be employed to protect Christians.

Staver argued that the act was “totally designed to stop pro-lifers,” adding that “its ultimate goal was to stop people from engaging in free speech or assembly outside of an abortion clinic.” (RELATED: Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal Claims Nearly All Protesters Peaceful Despite Disruptions)

Staver said the provision covering places of worship was only included to shield the law from constitutional challenges and to “save it from the argument that it was only designed to restrict one kind of speech, namely pro-life speech.”

He told the Caller he challenged the law’s constitutionality shortly after its passage, arguing the case before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ultimately ruled that the FACE Act should be limited to violence or threats of violence and not used to suppress protected speech.

Although the law was written to apply equally to abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers, data reveals its enforcement has been lopsided. From 1994 to 2024, the FACE Act was used 205 times against pro-life activists and only six times against abortion activists, meaning around 97% of prosecutions targeted pro-lifers, according to data Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy’s office provided the Caller.

Dys disagreed with Staver’s characterization of the law’s original intent, arguing that the FACE Act was “rightly put together.” Dys said he had successfully relied on the statute following the “spate of violence that shook pregnancy care centers” after the Dobbs decision.

Dys still claimed the act has been heavily abused, estimating that nine out of 10 times it has been used against the pro-life movement rather than in its defense.

Both attorneys said that if religious demonstrators stormed an abortion clinic, the application of the FACE Act would be immediate and unmistakable.

Staver cited multiple examples of pro-life women prosecuted under the statute, including what he called an especially “egregious” case involving 75-year-old Paula Harlow. Harlow was sentenced to two years in prison in 2024 after praying, singing hymns and offering assistance to women seeking abortions in Washington, D.C., according to Liberty Counsel.

Harlow herself was convicted of conspiracy under the FACE Act. Liberty Counsel described her sentence as a “life” sentence due to her age and health and claimed the federal judge mocked Harlow at sentencing.

Harlow’s case was not isolated, with Dys also saying the Biden administration abused the FACE Act.

Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was responsible for more than a quarter of all FACE Act prosecutions against pro-life activists, according to the Caller.

That enforcement posture shifted after the Trump administration returned to office and issued pardons for many individuals convicted under the law. The DOJ has since signaled it may use the same statute to protect First Amendment religious freedom inside houses of worship.

While Dys said repealing the FACE Act is unlikely due to the gridlock in Congress, but added that he intends to use the law to defend religious freedom as long as it remains in force. (RELATED: Don Lemon Labels Parishioners Of Church Stormed By Anti-ICE Rioters ‘Entitled White Supremacists’)

Staver disagreed, arguing the statute poses a “significant threat to free speech” and should be repealed altogether. For now, the Trump administration appears prepared to use a law to defend churches from disruption.

“There will be arrests in this situation,” Dhillon told Daily Caller Editorial Director Vince Coglianese on Monday. “Based on the video I’ve seen, there are clear violations of the FACE Act — really very clear.”

Lemon and the DOJ did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.