Morning Wire - The Don Lemon Church Protest Case and the FACE Act Fight

Episode Date: March 15, 2026

Don Lemon is facing federal scrutiny after he joined protesters as they stormed inside a Minnesota church back in January. Prosecutors say he may be in violation of the FACE Act, a law usually used in abortion clinic cases. In this episode, ADF president Kristen Waggoner explains what happened during the church protest, whether Lemon’s First Amendment defense holds up, and why the FACE Act is suddenly at the center of this case. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.- - -Ep. 2682- - -Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3- - -Today's Sponsors:Boll & Branch - Get 15% off your first order + free shipping at https://BollAndBranch.com/wire with code wire.Ethos - Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/WIRE Application times may vary. Rates may vary.- - -Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacymorning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I am just shocked at something that I've been doing for the last 30 years was deemed as something that we should not do. Former CNN anchor Don Lemon finds himself back in the news again after a member of the church that he and several protesters stormed, filed her own lawsuit against them, alleging the event caused emotional distress. Lemon is already up against Federal Face Act charges from the DOJ. In this episode, we talked to Kristen Wagner, CEO, President, and Chief Counsel for Alliance to Find the freedom about the different legal avenues at play in the Lemon case. I'm Daily Wire, Executive Editor John Vickley with Georgia Howe, and this is a Legal Wire edition of Morning Wire.

You know, sheets don't usually fail all at once. It's never this dramatic moment where they just fall apart. It's the small things that creep up on you, the corners that won't stay tucked, the fabric that feels a little thinner, a little scratchier than you remember. That's why you've got to upgrade to our sponsor, Bowling Branch. If your sheets are peeling, thinning, slipping off the mattress, or, making you overheat at night, then here's your sign. Personally, I'll tell you that yes, their sheets are amazing, but their waffle blanket is my current obsession. It's got a certain

breathability that's just perfect for warm nights. Bowling Branch's signature sheets are made from 100% organic cotton, and they're actually designed to hold their shape, stay breathable, and feel luxuriously soft night after night. Sleep sound with Bowling Branch. Get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com slash wire with code wire. That's Boland Branch, B-O-L-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash wire code wire to unlock 15% off. Some exclusions do apply. Having the right life insurance is a big deal. Thinking about it may feel overwhelming,

but taking steps to protect your family financially is now easier than ever through our sponsor, Ethos. You can get a quote in just seconds and actually apply in minutes, with the possibility of same-day coverage. The best part, there's no medical exam required. They offer coverage of up to $3 million, and some policies start as low as $30 a month.

Not having life insurance means that your family, will become immediately responsible for everything if something happens to you. Taking the time to set up life insurance now means that you're giving your family a bit of a safety net during a time when they're already going to be grieving you. And that sounds like peace of mind. Business Insider recognized Ethos as the top no medical exam, instant life insurance provider as of March 2025, and customers seem to agree. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos now by going to ethos.com slash wire.

In as little as 10 minutes, you can get your free quote and up to $3 million in coverage at ethos.com slash wire. That is ETHOS.com slash wire. Ethos.com slash wire. Application times and rates may vary. Joining us now to discuss church protests, the face act, and the bigger picture issues behind it all is Alliance Defending Freedom President and CEO Kristen Wagner. Kristen, thanks for coming on. Thank you for having me. So for those who haven't been tracking these cases as closely as maybe we have, can you quickly catch us up and explain what has happened recently? Sure. Well, In the wake of high political tensions involving illegal immigration and ICE and right after the death of Renee Good, there were a number of protests that took place in Minnesota, and one of them included in a church. Essentially, what happened was the Minnesota Black Lives Matter group began to plan a protest and to disrupt a church service by storming the church during the service in St. Paul.

And City's Church, which was interrupted, one of their pastors actually is by vocation. and has a job also working for the local field office at ICE, which is why they selected that church. Right. I think something else to think about it that probably made it even more noteworthy was who joined that storming of the church. And that was Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor. He helped, it appears, with the videos, both before, Doreen and after, by not only recording what they were doing, but as he said in his own words, doing reconnaissance related to the planning of that. storming of the church and disruption. Yeah, maybe an admission that he would want to take back on camera at this point. I would sure think so. If I was his lawyer, I would tell him he definitely did it

the wrong way. One of the things that he claimed with the pastor, as an example, on video, was that he had a First Amendment right to be there. That is certainly not true. And again, the statements about him doing reconnaissance, essentially helping to plan that storming of the church service as well as then being in there and engaging, it appears, according to some allegations, even in physical obstruction of some of the congregants, being able to ingress and egress. So is there evidence that these protesters actually got between children and their parents? The Department of Justice under the Trump administration has filed about 39 different indictments. And in those indictments, it does indicate that children were unable to get access to their parents, that they were afraid for

their safety and rightly so and that those parents were not able to go retrieve those children. There were many videos of this online on what happened, and I think it would scare any parent that might have had, for example, a child in a Sunday school classroom or a nursery when this was coming in with the chanting, with the yelling, and again, with even Don Lemon's actions on video where he is interrogating the pastor who's simply saying to him, look, we're about the love of Jesus, and he just keeps repeating that and saying, I need to go help my people. This is unacceptable. It's shameful. I have to take care of my flock. Listen, we live in. There's a constitution in the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest.

We're here to worship. We're here to worship Jesus because that's the hope of these cities. That's the hope of the world is Jesus Christ. I want to be very respectful. Please don't push me. I think most of us journalists haven't interrupted a religious gathering and shoved a microphone in a pastor's face. Does the First Amendment actually apply on this scenario and why is the federal government now involved? Well, aside from what actually happened to the church, what is also deeply concerning is that a former CNN anchor could botch the First Amendment so badly. Just because you have a microphone in your hand doesn't mean that you have special First Amendment free speech rights. And that's certainly true in this instance.

The First Amendment applies against the government. So if you're standing on a public sidewalk as an example, you would have the right to engage in free speech. But journalists don't get a free pass to enter private property and speak to and go wherever. they want. In fact, that's called trespass under the law. And as a result, the local officials, as well as the state officials in Minnesota, should have pursued this, both on a criminal level, and they did not. And so the federal government, through the Department of Justice, has had 39 indictments now under two federal statutes. One is called the Face Act, and the other is called conspiracy against rights. So a lot of the focus nationally has been on the Face Act component of this case.

Let's back up a little bit first. What is the Face Act and why was it passed? The Face Act stands for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. It was passed in 1994. President Clinton signed it. The whole point of that act was to target pro-life advocates and to ensure that they can't stand close to abortion facilities. Those who are involved in the pro-life movement know that, for example, sidewalk counselors

play a vital role in being able to peacefully, kindly help women, who want to have conversations before they have abortions. So this act was designed to intimidate those pro-life advocates. But in order to get bipartisan support, they actually had to include protections for houses of worship under that act, as well as religious pro-life pregnancy centers. And so that's why the FACE Act is implicated here. An example of that, though, has to do with how it has been applied in previous administrations,

and I think that's one reason why it's also so controversial here. All right, so this act really did begin in order to curb the rights of the pro-life side, but now it's boomeranged back on people trying to use it to disrupt a church service. How does it apply specifically in this case? Well, the language of the act is very important, and it basically says that both in houses of worship and in instances that are involving reproductive centers who are addressing it, whether it be pro-life pregnancy centers or abortion facilities, that individuals violate the law and face both criminal and civil sanctions if they use force or the threat of force or they physically obstruct an entrance or exit of one of these places, either of a church or of a pro-life pregnancy center. If you do that, you violate the law and you're actually subject to prison time under this act.

So the allegations here, and I think the video confirms that it's likely that a number of people did violate the Face Act by disrupting the church service and also obstructing and even using potentially threats of force to intimidate others in exercising their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. So this is a potentially positive implementation of this law from sort of the conservative perspective. Why have so many conservatives called for the repeal of this act anyway? Your organization, for example, has called for its repeal numerous times, correct? Absolutely. There are a couple reasons why, but the first and most important is it's not applied even handedly. It was designed to target pro-life activists. It has been weaponized against pro-life activists. And the primary example we can look at is what happened after the Dobbs decision was leaked. We saw hundreds of pregnancy resource centers as well as churches that were not only vandalized but firebombed. There were death threats painted across their buildings. And the Biden administration essentially did nothing under this act. They did not prosecute all, but maybe

two cases that went and they weren't even involving houses of worship and they sought minimal sentences. We can contrast that with how the Biden administration treated those who were peacefully outside of abortion clinics, wanting to minister to women. One of those was Mark Hauk as an example. Mark was standing with his son and a Planned Parenthood volunteer came up to him, intimidating him, and Mark shoved that volunteer out of his son's face. He faced prison time for that as a result. He was going to turn himself in because he knew the charges were filed, and instead the Biden administration's FBI sent about two dozen FBI agents to swarm his house. A second example is a young woman named Eva. Eva actually was about 80 years old at the time in a wheelchair, sitting outside of an

abortion clinic peacefully singing and worshiping, and she was facing 11 years of prison time. Some of these individuals, about two dozen cases, received, again, in sentencing up to like 57 months in prison. It's honestly hard to believe the Biden administration pursued those cases. On the other side, can the same accusations of political targeting be turned against the Trump administration here? Could critics of Trump not say the face act is being used to target Don Lemon and others in a similar way? It's important that the act be applied neutrally. And it's not only important for constitutional reasons, for rule of law, but no one should be facing violence or threats of violence in exercising their constitutional rights. But we can easily contrast these two situations to know that

it is being applied in an appropriate way. First of all, the Trump administration has actually already used this in a different House of Worship involving a Jewish synagogue. In addition to that, though, we also know that in terms of the even-handed nature of it, contrasting peaceful protesters or even peaceful individuals who are praising and worshiping outside of an abortion facility, to those who are literally mobbing a church service, causing the church service to be canceled, those are very different things. And the Trump administration is rightly prosecuting under these laws. So the big question now, do you think Lemon will actually be found in violation of the FACE Act? Well, I think that the case is going to be decided likely by a jury. And as it is, the jury will

apply the facts to the law. And so we will see how those facts play out. I don't think that the First Amendment will play a role in it. Again, journalists don't get free passes to invade the privacy rights or the private property rights or the free exercise rights of others. So it simply shouldn't be an issue. I think there are two criteria that the jury will be looking at. The first is when Don Lemon says that he was doing reconnaissance before the event occurred and he was filming at it and he was engaged with them after, that certainly starts to look like a conspiracy to deny rights of the church members. A second thing that I think the jury will also be looking at in the case has to do with what did he do while he was there? Were there any threats of force? Did he physically obstruct people from getting in and out or from getting to their children, as we talked about?

If the answer is yes to either one of those questions, my hope would be that justice would be served. Now, we focused on Don Lemon here because this is a high profile case, but there's lots of cases like this. What are you guys seeing in terms of cases that you're representing right now? We see an increasing amount of targeting and weaponizing laws against religious organizations, including religious pro-life pregnancy centers. In fact, we have four cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court right now. One of those actually is involving a religious pro-life pregnancy center where the New Jersey Attorney General has targeted them and has suggested that they need to turn over names of their donors and other private information, even when there's been no allegation of wrongdoing. We also have the Church and Ministry Alliance, which is helping organizations on a daily basis responding to inquiries that they're getting from the government.

So I think the best advice and the takeaway here is people need to be smart. They need to be proactive. They need to know what their rights are. And organizations like ADF as well as others can certainly help do that so that we can exercise our constitutional rights. We've all seen how quickly religious liberties can be curbed like we saw during the COVID lockdowns. And in this lemon case, you can see how, how we can see how. easy it is for agitators to get in there and disrupt worship services. So important cases here.

Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. That was Kristen Wagner, CEO, president, and chief counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. This has been a Legal Wire edition of Morning Wire.