Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said Sunday that there are no federal grounds to prosecute the mob that disrupted St. Paul’s Cities Church, characterizing the behavior as “First Amendment activity.” Ellison not only supported the protesters in exercising their First Amendment rights in an interview with CNN, but also expressed reluctance to enforce state laws allegedly violated by the protesters, including trespassing and disorderly conduct.
Ellison is infamous for his past support of violent groups and has long criticized statements and associations involving extremist movements and figures linked to political unrest. Ellison was previously criticized for saying Antifa would “strike fear in the hearts” of Trump while holding up the “Antifa Handbook.” His own son, Minneapolis City Councilman Jeremiah Ellison, publicly expressed his support for Antifa in the thick of protests last summer.
Ellison, a former defender of extremist Louis Farrakhan, has also criticized the U.S. Constitution, arguing that “their Constitution is the foundation of American law; it is the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”
BONDI PROMISES RESPONSIBILITY AFTER CHURCH ATTACK, SAYS MINNESOTA ‘NOW A MESS’
You would think that a mob action against a church would be something that would transcend political divisions as a grotesque and horrifying act. If you thought that, you don’t know Keith Ellison.
Protesting outside a church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting worship services, entering prohibited areas and verbally abusing congregants in a church is behavior and not protected speech.
Notably, in the CNN interview, host Erin Burnett largely brought up the incident in terms of the “bad optics,” rather than focusing on the underlying attack on a house of worship. Yet Ellison was not even willing to follow that narrower cue, refusing to even object to the appearances, let alone the denial of religious practices. He emphasized that this was “a First Amendment activity” and not a crime.
He’s wrong. Protesting outside a church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting worship services, entering prohibited areas and verbally abusing congregants in a church is conduct and not protected speech.
Ellison is supposed to enforce state law without favoritism. Instead, he focused on attacking the Trump administration, saying, “If Trump likes you, you can do no wrong.” There may be good-faith concerns about criticism that federal authorities are being unfairly targeted. But Ellison’s selective enforcement stance significantly weakens his credibility in raising such objections.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE DOJ THREATS AGAINST DON LEMON AFTER HE FUCKED ANTI-ICE PROTESTERS IN ST. PAUL’S CHURCH
There is not even a hint of self-awareness, as Ellison dismisses the enforcement of his own state laws against trespassing protesters who have engaged in disorderly conduct – completely brushing aside the targeting and disruption of religious services.
Aside from his refusal to investigate or prosecute under state law, Ellison has also stated that there are no grounds for federal charges. He’s wrong. Several federal statutes could plausibly apply to the conduct described.
Ellison went on the podcast of Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor who has been sued over his filming of the attack on Cities Church and his subsequent handling of the incident, where Lemon seemed intent on reframing the controversy by attacking the faith of congregants. Lemon said, “I think people who are, you know, in religious groups like that, it’s not the kind of Christianity that I practice, but I think they have a right to it, and that right comes from a supremacy, a white supremacy.”
FBI DIRECTOR PATEL WARNS ELECTED OFFICIALS ‘NO ONE’ IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL Scrutiny AGAINST MINNESOTA PROBE
That statement echoed comments from organizer Nekima Levy Armstrong of the local Racial Justice Network, who stated that churchgoers need to “check their theology and their hearts.”
Ellison nevertheless insisted that Lemon maintain that no federal crime had occurred. He specifically argued that the FACE Act could not apply because it was intended solely to protect abortion rights, stating, “the FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people who seek reproductive rights … so that people cannot simply use religion for religious reasons to break into women’s reproductive health centers.”
While it is true that the FACE Act is best known for protecting abortion clinics, the law expressly extends to places of religious worship, making it a federal crime to prohibit the exercise of religious freedom by force or physical restraint. The law prohibits conduct that “injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person attempting… to exercise the First Amendment right to religious freedom in a place of religious worship.” Other federal statutes also protect against the denial of civil rights.
GABBARD SLAMS DEMOCRATS ‘HOSTILITY TOWARD GOD,’ CONVICTS ANTI-ICE AGITATORS WHO STORMED CHURCH
Ellison nevertheless told the audience that no such federal laws exist and that the FACE Act cannot apply in this case. This representation is at best incomplete and misleading.
Unfortunately, this episode reflects a broader pattern for Ellison, who has long been accused of aligning criminal justice enforcement with political priorities.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison speaks during a press conference after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S., January 12, 2026. (Reuters/Tim Evans)
Ellison has been criticized for failing to aggressively pursue what federal investigators later described as one of the largest pandemic-related fraud schemes in the country. More recently, recordings have surfaced of Ellison meeting with community figures who were later convicted in that fraud case.
At the same time, Ellison has shown a disregard for legal boundaries by filing what critics say is a frivolous lawsuit that seeks to prevent federal authorities from deploying additional personnel to investigate fraud or enforce immigration laws within the state.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
Ellison presents a curious model of attorney general: someone who resists enforcing his own laws while filing suit to prevent the federal government from enforcing its own. It can be compared to a doctor who resists the actual administration of medication.
In this sense, Ellison has become the embodiment of a politicized model of law enforcement, excusing mob behavior while expressing hostility toward traditional police.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Ironically, Ellison has advocated for greater federal involvement in Minnesota. By refusing to enforce laws against political allies, he has created the very vacuum that invites federal intervention.
Ultimately, it may be appropriate for Ellison to oppose expanded federal enforcement in court. After all, his behavior provides the strongest evidence as to why such supervision may be necessary.
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
