Staff Reports
The St. Paul City Attorney has decided not to file state criminal charges against 39 protesters who disrupted a church service at Cities Church earlier this year. The protesters — who chanted “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good” after learning one pastor works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will still face federal civil rights charges. That split decision leaves a lot of unanswered questions about religious freedom, public safety, and how far a “peaceful protest” can go before it becomes a crime.
What happened inside Cities Church
Video of the event shows a group entering a Sunday service and chanting loudly, stopping the worship and upsetting congregants. According to reports, there was no violence, no property damage, and no threats recorded during the interruption. Cities Church lead pastor Jonathan Parnell called the action an invasion and warned that treating it as a protected protest opens the door to similar disruptions at mosques, synagogues, temples, and family gatherings. Independent journalist Don Lemon has been named in the federal complaint and says he was covering the protest, not joining it.
Why the city declined state charges
St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao said the evidence was not enough to meet the standard for criminal charges under Minnesota law because there was no violence or threat to public safety. Kao stressed the need to balance two protected rights: the right to peacefully protest and the right to freely exercise religion. That legal balancing act sounds reasonable on paper, but to many it feels like a loophole that rewards disruption of private religious worship simply because protesters remain nonviolent.
Federal civil rights charges: serious, but selective
The Justice Department’s civil rights angle raises the stakes and shows the federal government thinks the conduct may have crossed a line into interfering with worshipers’ rights. Federal charges carry heavier penalties and different legal standards than state charges. Still, relying on federal enforcement after the city declines to act looks like passing the buck — and it risks politicizing prosecutions, especially when protests are tied to hot-button issues like immigration.
What should happen next
Communities need clear rules that protect both free speech and the sanctuary of religious services. Prosecutors should apply the law evenhandedly so that worshipers — and families — aren’t left vulnerable to being shouted out of their own services. If “calling it a protest” becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for disrupting worship, then religious freedom isn’t being balanced so much as being bulldozed. The federal case may deliver accountability, but the clearer path would be consistent local enforcement that stops the disruption before it starts.
