A Republican and a Democrat in the House have joined forces to federally penalize anyone who disrupts a religious service, a rare bipartisan move prompted by a church occupation in St. Paul that left a parishioner with a broken arm and children in tears.
Reps. Brad Knott of North Carolina and Tom Suozzi of New York are introducing legislation this week that would impose civil fines on anyone who knowingly disrupts or impedes people from attending worship. The bill sets a $2,500 penalty for a first offense, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for a third, Fox News Digital reported after obtaining the bill's text.
The proposed law would create a 100-foot buffer zone around any pedestrian or vehicular entrance to a house of worship. That zone would be enforced starting one hour before a scheduled service and ending one hour after it concludes. Demonstrations conducted under a federal, state, or local government-issued permit would be exempt.
Drafters built the bill to survive a First Amendment challenge. Disruptions would be classified based on volume, duration, and impact, not the content of speech. That distinction matters. It means the bill targets conduct, not viewpoint, putting it on firmer constitutional ground than a content-based restriction would occupy.
The legislation did not materialize in a vacuum. On January 18, roughly 40 suspected participants in a coordinated action dubbed "Operation Pullup" stormed Cities Church in St. Paul during a Sunday service, Just The News reported, citing Department of Justice filings. Approximately 300 worshippers were inside at the time.
The protesters targeted the church because one of its pastors, David Easterwood, also serves as the acting director of ICE's St. Paul field office. Demonstrators from the Racial Justice Network accused him of directing immigration enforcement operations they opposed. One protester, former Minneapolis NAACP chapter president Nekima Levy Armstrong, told the New York Post:
"This cannot be a house of God while harboring someone directing ICE agents to wreak havoc on our community."
But whatever the protesters' grievance with federal immigration policy, the people inside that church were not ICE agents. They were families. And the DOJ's account of what happened to them is difficult to square with any definition of "peaceful protest."
A female parishioner broke her arm while fleeing. Multiple worshippers fell trying to get out. Agitators physically blocked parents from reaching their children in the downstairs childcare area by obstructing the stairwell. One parishioner described the scene in a DOJ filing:
"They were terrorized, our children were weeping, college students and young women were sobbing, it was impactful and it will take time to work through."
Three organizers, Armstrong, BLM Twin Cities leader Chauntyll Allen, and William Scott Kelly, were arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a Reconstruction-era civil rights conspiracy statute, for conspiring against rights secured by federal law. The charges invoked the FACE Act, a law that prohibits interference with the free exercise of religion. The same statute has historically been used to protect access to abortion clinics, but the Trump administration applied it here to shield a house of worship.
Before federal charges came down, the St. Paul city attorney declined to prosecute the protesters, characterizing their actions as a "peaceful protest." That decision drew sharp criticism and left local accountability at a dead end. It also underscored a gap: when local prosecutors refuse to act, worshippers have no recourse unless federal law applies.
Knott framed the bill as a direct response to that gap. In a statement, he said:
"Today, many Americans are unable to worship without fear of harassment, assault, or other forms of intimidation. The right to worship freely is foundational to our nation and was one of the motivations for its founding. No American should ever feel that their choice is between worshiping in fear and not worshiping at all."
Suozzi, the bill's Democratic co-sponsor, acknowledged the tension between protest rights and religious liberty but came down on the side of the worshippers. He said he supports people's right to peacefully protest but that "attendees of religious services should not be harassed, threatened, intimidated, or targeted for practicing their faith."
That a Democrat from New York signed on gives the bill something most religious-liberty measures lack: bipartisan credibility. Whether it survives committee remains an open question, but Suozzi's involvement makes it harder for opponents to dismiss the effort as a partisan stunt.
Meanwhile, the federal case against the church protesters is expanding. Prosecutors told the court they need additional time to review approximately 2,000 pages of reports, multiple videos, social media posts, seized cellphone data, and police body-camera footage. The investigation remains active, and the Washington Examiner reported that more defendants could be added.
Defense attorneys are pushing back against the DOJ's framing. In a joint filing, they argued:
"The indictment arises from a single incident lasting approximately one hour at one location. It alleges no multi-year scheme, no enterprise spanning jurisdictions, [and] no extraordinary evidentiary scope."
Armstrong's attorney, Jordan S. Kushner, went further, calling the prosecution "pure political persecution" and "the criminalization of free speech." He described his client as "the leader of a nonviolent political protest."
Prosecutors see it differently. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement that left little ambiguity about the administration's posture. She said:
"Attacks against law enforcement and the intimidation of Christians are being met with the full force of federal law."
Bondi added: "If state leaders refuse to act responsibly to prevent lawlessness, this Department of Justice will remain mobilized to prosecute federal crimes and ensure that the rule of law prevails."
The Knott-Suozzi bill is not the first legislative response to church disruptions. The Associated Press reported that at least four states adopted laws banning disruption of religious services earlier this year. The proposed federal legislation would create a national baseline, ensuring that worshippers in every state have the same protection regardless of whether their local prosecutor chooses to act.
The case has also raised questions about the line between journalism and activism. RealClearInvestigations contributor Ben Weingarten noted that the FACE Act's application to religious institutions, rather than its more traditional use protecting abortion clinics, could set a legal precedent. He suggested courts will eventually need to define where journalistic observation ends and unlawful participation begins, particularly in cases where media figures were present during the occupation.
DHS, for its part, framed the St. Paul incident as part of a broader pattern. In a post on X, the department stated: "Agitators aren't just targeting our officers. Now they're targeting churches, too."
Several questions remain unanswered. The bill has no public bill number yet, and its path through committee is unclear. The names of the four states that passed similar laws have not been disclosed. And the full scope of the federal investigation, including how many of the roughly 40 suspected participants may ultimately face charges, is still developing.
When a local prosecutor calls a church occupation that broke a woman's arm and left children sobbing a "peaceful protest," worshippers are right to wonder who exactly the system is designed to protect. Congress, at least, seems ready to give them an answer.
