Category: Politics

The Sanctuary Line

Why the DOJ is Using the FACE Act in Minnesota

When we hear “FACE Act,” most of us immediately think of reproductive health clinics. For decades, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act has been the primary tool for prosecuting individuals who physically block access to abortion providers.

But this week, a dramatic scene at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, is reminding the country of a lesser-known but equally powerful provision of that same 1994 law: the protection of religious liberty.

Following the invasion of Cities Church by agitators on January 18, the Department of Justice has signaled a major shift in enforcement, launching a federal investigation into whether the disruption violated the civil rights of the congregants inside. Here is why this case matters and how a law designed for clinics is now shielding the pews.

The Incident in St. Paul

On Sunday, January 18, 2026, the morning service at Cities Church was abruptly halted. Protesters affiliated with anti-ICE and Black Lives Matter groups entered the private sanctuary to confront a pastor whom they alleged was an ICE official involved in a recent controversy.

Eyewitnesses and video footage show the group marching into the nave, chanting slogans like “ICE Out,” and effectively stopping the worship service. While political protest is a cornerstone of American democracy, the critical legal question here is where that protest took place. By crossing the threshold from the public sidewalk into the private sanctuary, the agitators moved from protected speech to potential federal criminality.

The Legal Hook: 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2)

While the media often focuses on the “Clinic” part of the FACE Act, the statute’s full text is explicitly broader. Section (a)(2) makes it a federal crime for anyone who:

“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.”

To secure a conviction, federal prosecutors don’t need to prove that the protesters were violent. They simply need to prove three things:

  1. Intent: The goal was to disrupt the service.
  2. Obstruction: The agitators’ physical presence made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for congregants to worship.
  3. Protected Activity: The victims were engaged in religious exercise at a house of worship.

A “House of Worship is Not a Public Forum”

The distinction between “public” and “private” is the linchpin of this investigation. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was blunt in her assessment earlier this week, stating that “a house of worship is not a public forum.”

This is a critical legal concept. You have a right to protest on the sidewalk outside a church. You do not have the right to commandeer a private religious service to amplify your message. The DOJ is arguing that by invading the sanctuary, the agitators engaged in “physical obstruction” and “intimidation”—tactics that strip congregants of their safety and their constitutional right to worship in peace.

Why This is a Turning Point

Historically, the “religious worship” clause of the FACE Act has been gathering dust. Despite numerous acts of vandalism and disruption at churches over the last decade, federal charges have been rare, with most incidents relegated to state-level trespassing misdemeanors.

The swift federal response in Minnesota suggests the Department of Justice is adopting a new, more aggressive posture. By elevating this incident to a federal civil rights investigation, the DOJ is sending a clear message: the federal government views the sanctity of a church service as equal to the sanctity of a clinic.

The Bottom Line

The events at Cities Church have set up a major test for the FACE Act in 2026. If the DOJ successfully prosecutes these agitators, it will establish a powerful precedent that protecting “access” means protecting the ability to pray without intrusion, regardless of the political grievances of those outside the doors.

Today’s Comic

Justice or Order?

The Real Meaning Behind Hamilton’s Famous Quote

“I think the first duty of society is justice.”

It sounds like a modern plea for equity or fairness. You might expect to see it on a protest sign or in a civil rights essay. But when Alexander Hamilton wrote these words in August 1794, he wasn’t calling for social reform—he was calling for the army to march on American citizens.

To understand this quote, we have to look at the crisis that gave rise to it: the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Crisis

In the early 1790s, the young United States was fragile. To pay off war debts, Hamilton (as Treasury Secretary) had instituted an excise tax on distilled spirits. For farmers on the western frontier, whiskey wasn’t just a drink; it was a currency. They viewed the tax as tyranny.

By 1794, protests in Western Pennsylvania had turned violent. Tax collectors were tarred and feathered, and armed insurgents threatened to burn Pittsburgh. The authority of the federal government was crumbling.

The “Tully” Essays

Hamilton wrote a series of essays for the American Daily Advertiser under the pseudonym “Tully.” His goal was to convince the public—and President George Washington—that the government had a moral obligation to use military force to crush the insurrection.

In this context, Hamilton’s definition of “justice” was strictly legal and political. He wasn’t talking about fairness; he was talking about the Rule of Law.

Hamilton argued that:

  • In a republic, laws are made by representatives elected by the majority.
  • If a violent minority can simply choose to ignore those laws, the government has failed.
  • Therefore, the “first duty” of society is to enforce its laws (justice) to protect the peace and liberty of the law-abiding majority.

The Legacy

Hamilton’s argument won the day. George Washington personally led a militia force of nearly 13,000 men into Pennsylvania—the first and only time a sitting U.S. President has led troops in the field. The rebellion dissolved without a major battle.

When you quote Hamilton today, remember the context. He wasn’t arguing for the government to be nicer; he was arguing that a government that cannot enforce its will is no government at all. For Hamilton, justice was the iron wall standing between civilization and anarchy.

Primary Source: “Tully No. III” by Alexander Hamilton

Today’s Comic

Minnesota Democratic leaders, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have strongly condemned the shooting and rejected the DHS narrative. Walz called for a full state investigation, stating he’s seen footage that contradicts the federal account, and criticized the Trump administration’s approach. Frey went further, saying ICE is “causing chaos and distrust” and demanding they leave the city. Protests have ensued, with the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association calling for all leaders to tone down their rhetoric to prevent escalation.

Upholding the Supremacy Clause

Trump’s Bold Deportation Actions in Chicago and Charlotte Are Restoring Law and Order

In a time when America’s immigration system has been strained to the breaking point by years of lax enforcement, President Trump’s second administration is taking decisive action to secure our borders and protect our communities. Drawing on the ironclad authority of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the Trump team is overriding obstructive local policies in sanctuary cities and states, ensuring that federal immigration laws are upheld nationwide. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent operations in Chicago and Charlotte, where targeted deportations are not only legal but essential for public safety, economic fairness, and national security. Let’s break it down and see why these moves deserve our full support.

The Supremacy Clause: The Constitutional Backbone of Federal Immigration Power

At the heart of Trump’s deportation strategy lies Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution—the Supremacy Clause. This foundational provision declares that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land,” binding on all states regardless of conflicting local rules. In simple terms, when the federal government acts within its authority on immigration—a field the Supreme Court has long recognized as exclusively federal—states and cities cannot stand in the way.

This isn’t just theory; it’s been affirmed time and again by the courts. In landmark cases like *Arizona v. United States* (2012), the Supreme Court struck down state attempts to create their own immigration enforcement schemes, emphasizing federal preemption. Similarly, rulings during Trump’s first term, such as *United States v. California* (2018), clarified that while states can’t be forced to assist federal agents, they absolutely cannot obstruct them. This principle is now powering the administration’s efforts to dismantle sanctuary policies that have shielded criminal aliens and undermined public trust in the rule of law.

By invoking this authority, the Trump administration is fulfilling its mandate under federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and § 1231, which require the detention and removal of certain undocumented individuals. Recent court decisions, including those enjoining Biden-era non-enforcement policies, further reinforce that the executive branch has a duty to act—not an option to ignore congressional intent.

Chicago: Cracking Down on Sanctuary Obstruction and Protecting American Lives

Chicago, long a bastion of sanctuary city policies under Democratic leadership, has been a prime target for Trump’s renewed focus on deportations. In November 2025, the administration launched “Operation Midway Blitz,” a coordinated effort involving ICE and other federal agencies to apprehend and remove undocumented immigrants, many with criminal ties.

This operation has already led to the detention of hundreds, with a strong emphasis on those posing threats to community safety—despite misleading claims that “nearly all” had no criminal records, data shows a significant portion did, and all were in violation of federal immigration law.

Critics, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, have protested these actions, demonizing federal agents and the National Guard while leading chants against deportations.

Tragically, this rhetoric coincided with the heartbreaking loss of two National Guardsmen in the line of duty, underscoring the dangers of politicizing law enforcement.

But the Supremacy Clause cuts through the noise: Chicago’s sanctuary ordinances, which limit cooperation with ICE, cannot block federal operations. The administration has rightfully pushed back, using tools like withholding grants and direct federal intervention to ensure compliance.

The results speak for themselves. With over 500,000 deportations nationwide since January 2025, including many from high-crime areas like Chicago, violent incidents are declining—Chicago’s shootings are down 33% and homicides 25% compared to 2024.

By prioritizing the removal of violent gang members and other threats, Trump’s team is making streets safer for law-abiding citizens. This isn’t about politics; it’s about enforcing laws that protect Americans first.

Charlotte: Boosting Jobs, Easing Burdens, and Demonstrating Efficiency

Shifting south to Charlotte, North Carolina, the Trump administration’s “Operation Charlotte’s Web” has been a resounding success in demonstrating how federal supremacy can deliver tangible benefits.

Over just a few days in mid-November 2025, federal agents arrested more than 250 undocumented individuals, surging resources to target those straining local economies and infrastructure.

While some reports highlight that not all arrestees had criminal records, the operation aligns perfectly with federal priorities: removing those here illegally, regardless of additional crimes, to free up jobs and resources for Americans.

One unexpected upside? Charlotte’s notorious traffic woes are easing as construction sites and businesses, previously reliant on undocumented labor, now stand ready for American workers.

Entire job sites have opened up, creating opportunities for citizens and legal residents—proving that Trump’s “America First” approach isn’t just rhetoric; it’s revitalizing local economies.

Even as North Carolina Republicans express concerns about the scale, the operation’s swift conclusion shows the administration’s commitment to targeted, efficient enforcement without unnecessary disruption.

Here again, the Supremacy Clause reigns supreme. North Carolina’s more cooperative stance allowed for seamless federal action, but even in resistant areas, the Constitution empowers the president to bypass local hurdles. This operation has removed burdens on taxpayers, reduced competition for entry-level jobs, and sent a clear message: illegal presence won’t be tolerated.

Why These Actions Are Essential—and Why We Should Stand Behind Them

President Trump’s deportation initiatives in Chicago and Charlotte aren’t radical; they’re a return to constitutional order. For too long, sanctuary jurisdictions have flouted federal law, harboring individuals who drain resources and, in some cases, commit crimes that devastate families. By leveraging the Supremacy Clause, the administration is reclaiming control, deporting over 527,000 people since taking office, and aiming to deport even more.

This isn’t cruelty—it’s justice, ensuring that our laws apply equally and our communities thrive.

Opponents may cry foul, but the facts are clear: these operations are reducing crime, opening jobs, and upholding the rule of law. As Americans, we should applaud this courage and support the Trump administration’s efforts to make our nation safer and stronger. The Supremacy Clause isn’t just a legal tool—it’s the shield protecting our sovereignty. Let’s keep America great by enforcing it fully.