Arizona Rep Adelita Grijalva Defends MN Church Disruption as DOJ Weighs Possible FACE Act Violations

Arizona Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva is drawing national criticism after defending protesters who disrupted a Minnesota church service, an incident that has already resulted in federal arrests and a Justice Department review for potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The statute is designed to protect not only abortion providers but also religious worship from intimidation and obstruction.

The protest occurred at Cities Church in St. Paul, where activists entered during services to confront the church’s leadership about immigration enforcement, according to PBS News. The church’s pastor also serves as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official, a connection that protesters cited as justification for targeting the congregation.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon disagreed publicly in a post to X, writing, “A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws!”

Rather than condemning the intrusion, Grijalva appeared on CNN’s The Source on January 19 and defended the demonstrators, stating that churches are “open door” spaces and that protesters “have the right to go in there.” She emphasized that the protest was nonviolent and framed it as a legitimate response to federal immigration actions.

CNN: Do you believe it was a step too far for protesters to go into a church?

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ): I don’t. I don’t… Churches have always been an open door… Those protesters were not violent in any way. pic.twitter.com/5IrHnnSsp4

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) January 20, 2026

Her remarks came as the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed it is reviewing whether the protest violated the FACE Act, according to The Associated Press.  The 1994 legislation makes it a federal crime to intentionally obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with individuals exercising their right to religious worship.

Why the FACE Act Matters Here

While most commonly associated with abortion-related cases, the FACE Act explicitly protects religious worship, prohibiting disruptions intended to intimidate or impede congregants. Federal courts have previously applied the statute in cases involving protests inside churches and synagogues, not just outside medical facilities.

According to DOJ officials, investigators are assessing whether entering the sanctuary during worship, shouting slogans, and confronting church leaders crosses the line from protected speech into unlawful interference.

That legal context has intensified scrutiny of Grijalva’s comments, with critics arguing that her defense implicitly minimizes the seriousness of a potential federal civil rights violation.

Political Protest or Religious Intimidation?

The protest was triggered by outrage over the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was fatally shot during a federal immigration operation involving an ICE agent. Activists entered the church chanting slogans and demanding accountability, per reporting from WCTI ABC News 12,  asserting that the pastor’s dual role justified confronting him in the place of worship.

Civil liberties advocates sympathetic to immigration reform have nonetheless expressed concern that the tactic undermines longstanding norms protecting religious sanctuaries from political confrontation.

Opponents argue that the choice of venue—during a worship service—was not incidental, but intentional, aimed at applying public pressure in a space traditionally shielded from political coercion.

Grijalva’s Defense Draws Fire

Grijalva’s assertion that churches are inherently open spaces for protest has drawn sharp criticism from religious liberty advocates and conservative lawmakers, who argue that her comments effectively normalize political intimidation inside houses of worship.

Critics have also pointed to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s defense of the protesters as evidence of a growing double standard—one in which religious freedom is treated as conditional depending on political alignment, according to The Blaze.

A National Legal and Cultural Flashpoint

The incident has thrown a spotlight on the escalating tensions over immigration enforcement, protest tactics, and the limits of First Amendment activity. While peaceful protest remains protected speech, federal law draws clear lines when that protest interferes with others’ constitutional rights—including the free exercise of religion.

Federal enforcement actions have already followed. According to Reuters, citing the DOJ, three individuals were arrested by federal agents in connection with the church disruption, including civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, St. Paul School Board member Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and activist William Kelly. Authorities said the arrests stem from an ongoing civil rights investigation examining whether the protesters’ conduct violated the FACE Act and related federal statutes protecting religious worship from intimidation and interference. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether additional charges or arrests are forthcoming.

As the Justice Department review continues, Grijalva’s remarks have elevated the controversy into a broader national debate: Does defending a church disruption also mean defending conduct now under federal civil rights investigation?