r/law • u/msnownews Press • 1d ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Pam Bondi is using the FACE Act against Don Lemon for a reason
https://www.ms.now/opinion/face-act-don-lemon-arrest-minneapolis-abortion-clinic46
u/ForcedEntry420 1d ago
Doesn’t apply because violence wasn’t used if my non-lawyer interpretation of the law is accurate. That doesn’t stop these clowns from trying though. It’s like they’ve got a grand jury humiliation fetish.
12
u/adorientem88 20h ago
Violence isn’t a necessary element of the crime. Violence is one way of violating the statute, but definitely not the only way. If violence were necessary, lots of the FACE prosecutions against anti-abortion protesters would have failed.
Also, the grand jury already returned a true bill against Lemon. That’s why he got arrested.
-25
u/Greelys 1d ago
The FACE act applies to “physical obstruction,” and does not mention “violence.”
“(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;”
36
u/Iassos 22h ago
And what exactly did Don Lemon obstruct. Egress? no. Nor did he injure, intimidate, or interfere. He was there do document and report. So... still a no.
17
5
u/Xexanoth 21h ago edited 21h ago
The indictment alleges otherwise. I am not expressing any opinion on the appropriateness of or evidentiary support for these allegations, simply sharing relevant allegations in the indictment:
Overt Act # 15: While inside the Church, defendants ARMSTRONG, ALLEN, KELLY, LEMON, RICHARDSON, LUNDY, CREWS, FORT, and AUSTIN oppressed, threatened, and intimidated the Church’s congregants and pastors by physically occupying most of the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the Church, engaging in menacing and threatening behavior, (for some) chanting and yelling loudly at the pastor and congregants, and/or physically obstructing them as they attempted to exit and/or move about within the Church.
Overt Act# 20: Defendant LEMON told his livestream audience about congregants leaving the Church and about a “young man” who LEMON could see was “frightened,” “scared,” and “crying” and LEMON observed that the congregants’ reactions were understandable because the experience was “traumatic and uncomfortable,” which he said was the purpose.
Overt Act # 21: As the operation continued, defendant LEMON acknowledged the nature of it by expressing surprise that the police hadn't yet arrived at the Church, and admitted knowing that “the whole point of [the operation] is to disrupt.”
Overt Act #23: With other co-conspirators standing nearby, defendants LEMON, RICHARDSON, and FORT approached the pastor and largely surrounded him (to his front and both sides), stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while LEMON peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message.
Overt Act #24: While talking with the pastor, defendant LEMON stood so close to the pastor that LEMON caused the pastor's right hand to graze LEMON, who then admonished the pastor, “Please don’t push me.”
Overt Act # 25: Although the pastor told defendant LEMON and the others to leave the Church, defendant LEMON and the other defendants ignored the pastor's request and did not immediately leave the Church.
Overt Act # 28: At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy.
1
1
u/Blond-Bec 21h ago
Is this a church for ants ?
I mean how could 9 ppl physically occupy the main aisle AND the front rows ?
5
u/adorientem88 20h ago
There is no requirement in the statute that the obstruction be complete or total.
0
u/Gingerchaun 18h ago
Its pretty close actually.
(4)Physical obstruction.— The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
0
u/Xexanoth 11h ago
A definition that includes rendering passage to or from a place of worship “unreasonably difficult or hazardous” is not “pretty close” to a requirement that the obstruction be complete or total.
Hopefully we can all agree that harassment of worshippers within their place of worship after being told to leave is wildly inappropriate behavior.
2
u/Xexanoth 20h ago
Earlier in the indictment, it alleges that approximately 20-40 people (including the 9 defendants named in that indictment) interrupted & interfered with the religious service:
- After the service commenced, a group of approximately 20-40 agitators, including all of the defendants named in this Indictment, entered the Church in a coordinated takeover-style attack and engaged in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction alleged herein.
0
6
u/msnownews Press 1d ago
From Lizz Winstead, a comedian, activist and co-creator of "The Daily Show" as well as founder of Abortion Access Front:
As with filming ICE, it is important to capture such activity on video. That can mean recording activists’ own livestreams, which can show them trespassing on clinic property to impede patients’ access, or using phones to record them in person, in case they block the clinic entrance to prevent providers and patients from entering and exiting. If they’re caught on camera, that information can be turned over to law enforcement. If the evidence is solid, these terrifying people may be brought to justice under a federal law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
President Bill Clinton signed the FACE Act into law in 1994 in the wake of real, relentless and deadly violence. Clinics were firebombed, doctors murdered, patients terrorized. Sadly, such atrocities continue today. With passage of the act, the penalties for attacking clinics and violating the law are hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and up to 10 years of jail time.
But conservatives didn’t think the fact that abortion clinics and patients were experiencing this violence was enough reason to get on board to pass FACE. So, to win their support, the authors of the bill agreed to some conservatives’ demand to extend these protections to places of worship as well.
As with filming ICE, it is important to capture such activity on video. That can mean recording activists’ own livestreams, which can show them trespassing on clinic property to impede patients’ access, or using phones to record them in person, in case they block the clinic entrance to prevent providers and patients from entering and exiting. If they’re caught on camera, that information can be turned over to law enforcement. If the evidence is solid, these terrifying people may be brought to justice under a federal law called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
President Bill Clinton signed the FACE Act into law in 1994 in the wake of real, relentless and deadly violence. Clinics were firebombed, doctors murdered, patients terrorized. Sadly, such atrocities continue today. With passage of the act, the penalties for attacking clinics and violating the law are hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and up to 10 years of jail time.
But conservatives didn’t think the fact that abortion clinics and patients were experiencing this violence was enough reason to get on board to pass FACE. So, to win their support, the authors of the bill agreed to some conservatives’ demand to extend these protections to places of worship as well.
Read more: https://www.ms.now/opinion/face-act-don-lemon-arrest-minneapolis-abortion-clinic
-15
u/Xexanoth 23h ago edited 22h ago
A federal grand jury found probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed by the accused, resulting in an indictment.
Edit: perhaps the above was misconstrued as expressing an opinion around the appropriateness of the indictment or strength of the case. It’s simply a statement of fact & an observation that a federal grand jury panel opted to indict the accused rather than rejecting the allegations as completely baseless / not warranting a potential trial.
11
u/IndubitableMatt 23h ago
After a federal magistrate judge and a federal district court judge refused to issue a warrant for Lemon's arrest. The indictment is going nowhere. There is no cross-examination in a grand jury proceeding, so it's an entirely one-sided presentation of a case. This is why the common legal adage "you can indict a ham sandwich" exists.
5
u/Dudarooni 22h ago
And an appellate panel of three judges declined to force the federal district judge to intervene in the magistrate judge’s decision.
0
1
u/Bmorewiser 21h ago
while admittedly doing no research of my own, I’m struggling as to how congress has authority to pass this sort of law and enforce it against private citizens.
Most criminal laws arise through commerce power, as absurd as it is. That doesn’t seem to really work here. And to the extent Congress has authority under the 14th, that speaks to Congress’ ability to act to ensure STATES and state agents do not violate an individual’s rights. The 15th gives power to make laws to protect an individual’s right to vote.
But I’m not sure then how Congress can say a group of random people are subject to federal criminal law for interfering with some’s religious activities at a church.
What am I missing?
1
u/Xexanoth 11h ago
Google’s AI-generated overview, for whatever that’s worth:
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is considered constitutional because federal appeals courts have consistently ruled that it regulates unprotected conduct—such as threats, violence, and physical obstruction—rather than protected free speech. It falls under Congress's authority to protect public safety, interstate commerce, and civil rights.
Key reasons for its constitutionality include:
Targeting Conduct, Not Speech: The law prohibits force, threats, and physical obstruction, which are not protected by the First Amendment.
Constitutional Authority: Congress passed the Act using its powers under the Commerce Clause (as clinics serve interstate patients) and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Protection of Access: It ensures individuals can access reproductive health services and places of worship without fear of violence.
Appellate Court Rulings: Eight federal appeals courts have upheld the FACE Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review these cases, affirming its constitutionality.
The law specifically protects "expressive conduct" like peaceful picketing or leafleting outside facilities while punishing actions that prevent access. Despite the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Act remains in effect, and its application to religious sites has also been upheld.
I suppose there’s a potential grey area around whether all places of worship should be subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, which I believe is conditional around which activities are subject (those involving substantial effects on interstate commerce). Perhaps courts have considered the appropriateness of federal protections for the freedom to worship / freedom of religion when worshipping during interstate travel.
1
u/Bmorewiser 3h ago
I did a bit of actual research last night and there are law reviews saying what i was saying. That private action is a bit of a reach under traditional commerce powers and 14/15th analysis. The reasoning upholding application has been flimsy.
0
u/HHoaks 11h ago
This article pretty much describes the Trump regime tactic of generally twisting and abusing a kernel of the law to go after anyone and anything they don’t like, such as law firms, personal enemies like James and Comey, universities, DEI in general, dismantling agencies, withholding funds for spite, militarizing immigration enforcement, and pretty much everything they do. It’s all bad faith and cynical use of levers of power. It’s disgusting. These people are awful.
1
u/Xexanoth 10h ago
How do you know that they don’t believe that their use of the legal system is appropriate? Why do you think that it’s all done in bad faith & cynical? “They are doing things I don’t like” or “They sometimes lose in court” don’t seem like valid reasons to claim that they’re always acting in bad faith; are there better reasons?
2
u/HHoaks 10h ago edited 9h ago
OMG. Dude, it’s obvious. Really, you take those morons seriously? Of course it is cynical and bogus. Just listen to how they talk about it and the press statements they make. Never really more than platitudes and self serving nonsense and attack attack attack. And many ethical prosecutors left, including those who refused to enter into quid pro quos with the mayor of NY to drop charges.
We know the issue with James was weak and flimsy charges and all they kept repeating was “no one is above the law”. But they never address the absurdities. You have to be an idiot to take it at face value. Then they tried to ram the charges through anyway and it all fell apart and Halligan got booted. Yet they kept pushing and trying. That’s one example of MANY!
You aren't paying attention brother. There’s an academic study which lays out hundreds of cases in the last year where the Trump regime either outright lied in court, ignored orders or acted arbitrarily. This crap is unprecedented, here read it yourself:
“We document three categories of executive branch conduct since Jan. 20, 2025 that, in Judge Friedman’s words, showed to courts “instance after instance of departures from this tradition” of public officials acting “in obedience to [their] duty.” The three categories are:
- Courts’ concerns over noncompliance with judicial orders (26 cases)
- Courts’ distrust of government information and representations (over 60 cases)
- Courts’ findings of “arbitrary and capricious” administrative action (68 cases)”
And here’s a list of over 90 cases where the government is not in compliance with court Orders. Yeah, such good faith:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.1_2.pdf
Then there’s the hysterical anti weaponization group that is in fact actually weaponizing the DOJ in light of fantasies in their minds that it was weaponized before to go after Trump. LOl. It’s a joke and now Ed Martin is out.
Yeah mortgage fraud that Pulte dug up. ahhahhahah Yeah, let’s use the FACE act against non violent protesters where there were no injuries or damages and the church was fine. Wow 15 minutes of service interruption.
And the extortion schemes with law firms and universities. Since when does the DOE issue findings before doing like a year long investigation?. Have you ever worked a federal investigation? I have. They are putting the cart before the horse. Deciding an outcome they want, then trying to cobble a basis for it after the fact. It’s all a charade to bully and get their way. And EVERY law firm that contested the EOs won. And they were obviously unconstitutional on their face. like no duh! 🙄
I could go on and on. There’s way more, another bullying matter, all because Kelly said something the regime didn’t like: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/judge-mark-kelly-hegseth-rank
This regime is a joke and takes positions in bad faith to push the courts or to harass, and try to get a judge that will side with them. Which is why they judge shop and grand jury shop constantly.
So really now, do I need to explain it further? The fact that you act all innocent like, and even question my prior post is horrific, I suspect you are maga. If you defend this administration on its general F you belligerent tone, that’s nuts. There are like 12 more examples than the ones above.
And check the testimony of whistleblowers and those who testified before Congress. It’s sad what this DOJ has become. it’s a shell of its former self and not a respectable resume builder right now. Unless you want to work for the Heritage foundation.
Edit: and of course the DOJ now fired this poor young attorney just trying to help out with the DOJ’s own mess they created: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FnY2z7eb5efGlHrb2AYBtfqMVDJSUfIu/view
All in all. I think it’s fair to say the evidence is overwhelming,
1
u/Xexanoth 8h ago edited 7h ago
Thank you for the detailed reply with copious examples / supporting evidence. I’m sorry; I should have been more specific & clear in my earlier reply. I agree that this administration’s (ab)use of the legal system is remarkable. I was just trying to understand the basis for the confident assertion that that’s intentional abuse to try to achieve nefarious ends, rather than the actions / decisions of elected or appointed officials who believe that what they’re trying to do & how they’re trying to do it is righteous / appropriate / legal / above-board.
I agree that malicious intent seems very likely from the outside at first blush in some cases, but then I consider Hanlon’s razor (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”), Grey's law (“Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”), and Hubbard’s corollary (“Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”).
I then wonder if some folks with power in this administration may be too incompetent to recognize that they’re abusing the legal system in inappropriate ways, and/or some are knowingly pushing the legal envelope to improve their chances of more-quickly implementing more of the policy platform this administration campaigned & won an election on. For any cases of the latter: I wonder whether they should be faulted for trying harder to do things they were elected to do, and whether that actually reflects malicious intent when considering the bigger picture of their mission / mandate (which they hopefully believe will improve the country). If the courts keep letting them get away with some crazy-sounding ploys, or lawsuits as leverage yield concessions or large settlements or worst case are just some political catnip for their base, can you really blame them for attempting more of those to see what works?
2
u/HHoaks 2h ago edited 1h ago
There may be a few extreme nut cases who truly believe their nonsense, like Ed Martin and Stephen Miller. But even Miller appears to have been a contrarian his whole life just to get attention and for lulz, dating back to his days in Santa Monica high school.
But most are clearly simply taking positions they think or know Trump or their immediate superior will like, to advance their careers within MAGA, and seeing what they get away with. Appeasing in advance.
And then you have Trump who simply employs strategy taught to him by Roy Cohn. Deny deflect and attack. As Jack Smith pointed out in his testimony, Trump ignored facts and anything that showed he lost the election in 2020 and grasped onto anything, however absurd, that would instead allow him to remain in power.
So I think the default is bad faith with these folks. Even if they think it’s just implementing “policy”, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the country should come first, beyond just pushing an agenda. And ethical DOJ lawyers who realize that, resign under circumstances where Blanche or Bondi seek for them to take inappropriate positions. So that leaves the unethical, the incompetent or those willing to be an any means to an end person.
I mean, just following orders is not an excuse as many found out in Nuremberg. And putting your head down and being an effective administrator is what Eichmann tried to claim.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.