Key points
- Activists interrupted a Sunday service at Cities Church in St. Paul, accusing a pastor of ties to ICE; video of the disruption circulated widely.
- Former CNN anchor Don Lemon livestreamed from the scene and interviewed participants and church leaders during and after the disruption.
- Conservatives invoked the federal FACE Act and the Department of Justice opened an inquiry into whether federal laws protecting worship services were violated.
- The FACE Act criminalizes force, threats or obstruction at certain facilities; legal experts caution it has a specific scope and history.
What happened, in plain terms
On Sunday morning a group of anti-ICE demonstrators entered Cities Church during a worship service and chanted, demanding accountability for a pastor they said has ties to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Video shows the interruption lasted several minutes before protesters left the sanctuary; the episode was livestreamed and widely shared on social platforms, sparking national attention.
Who is David Easterwood (as reported)
Local reporting and protesters named David Easterwood as the pastor alleged to have worked in an ICE role; church leaders say the pastor did not lead the worship that morning.
Journalists note that protesters assert a public-sector connection while the church disputes the characterization; those are competing claims in the public record.
Don Lemon’s involvement — reporting vs. organizing
Former CNN anchor Don Lemon appears on video interviewing protesters and pastors and livestreamed parts of the disruption; Lemon has said he was covering the event, not organizing it.
Media accounts show Lemon’s presence amplified the episode but do not establish he arranged or led the protest.
What is the FACE Act and why it’s being mentioned
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act (1994) makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, or obstruction at certain facilities and authorizes civil remedies for obstruction of access.
Although originally aimed at protecting reproductive-health clinics, political actors have in recent days invoked FACE-Act language to describe interference with worship services.
Legal and federal response so far
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said it is reviewing footage and reports to determine whether federal statutes apply; that inquiry has been publicly announced and is ongoing.
Conservative commentators and some federal officials urged FACE-Act enforcement; civil-rights advocates counter that prosecutors should concentrate on proven violent misconduct rather than political theater.
How houses of worship and journalists can navigate these moments
Churches facing protest may prioritize safety, document incidents, and work with local law enforcement while seeking legal advice about civil-rights remedies.
Journalists covering such disruptions should clearly separate verified facts (police statements, church remarks) from activists’ claims and social-media speculation.
Quick FAQ — short answers readers want
Was the pastor arrested or charged?
No public reporting indicates an arrest of a pastor tied to this incident; the DOJ review is focused on whether federal statutes were violated.
Does the FACE Act automatically apply to protests in churches?
Not automatically — FACE targets specific obstructive or violent acts; whether it applies depends on the conduct and statutory elements prosecutors can prove. Legal review is required.
Did Don Lemon break any law by livestreaming?
Coverage suggests Lemon was acting as a journalist on scene; mere livestreaming of public events is generally protected speech. Whether any separate conduct violates law is a factual and legal question for authorities.
Was the disruption of Cities Church an appropriate form of protest?
Why this episode matters
The clash sits at the intersection of immigration enforcement, press coverage, and religious-liberty protections — and it shows how local disputes can quickly draw federal attention.
As authorities sift video and testimony, careful reporting and legal restraint will be essential to separate criminal conduct from legitimate protest and journalism.
Disclaimer: This article synthesizes contemporaneous reporting available as of January 2026, including AP, Star Tribune, Religion Unplugged and coverage citing DOJ comment. It summarizes competing claims and an ongoing DOJ review; readers should expect further clarification from official statements and court filings as the inquiry proceeds.