Former CNN host Don Lemon is trying to knock out part of a federal law as he fights criminal charges stemming from the disruption of a Minnesota church service. But according to one legal expert, a victory for Lemon could create an unintended problem for abortion-rights advocates.
The law at issue is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, better known as the FACE Act.
Congress enacted the law in 1994, primarily amid confrontations surrounding abortion facilities, but its protections also extend to people exercising religious freedom at places of worship. Among other provisions, the statute prohibits certain uses of force, threats or physical obstruction that interfere with access to reproductive health services or religious worship.
Lemon’s case arose from a January protest that disrupted a church service in the Minneapolis area. He was subsequently charged with federal civil-rights offenses.
Now his lawyers are challenging the prosecution.
During court proceedings Aug. 7, Lemon’s defense sought dismissal of the indictment on multiple grounds. One of those arguments targets the FACE Act’s protections involving religious worship.
That is where things get interesting.
Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, told the Daily Signal that successfully invalidating the church-related portion of the FACE Act could provide grounds for a broader attack on the statute — including the provisions protecting abortion facilities.
“It would be one of the greatest ironies of the universe that it was Don Lemon that was responsible for invalidating the very law that was put in place to protect abortion clinics in this country,” Dys said.
Five months ago, a trans shooter killed 2 people at a Minneapolis church and wounded 30 more.
That makes what Don Lemon and his leftist thugs did at another Minneapolis church even more disgusting. pic.twitter.com/8anm7I5uL9
— Christian Tweets (@JesusSavesUs777) January 19, 2026
“I’m surprised that he would want to inflict that damage to a law that has protected abortion clinics around the country,” he added.
Whether a court actually would invalidate the entire statute is another matter. Lemon’s challenge to one provision would not automatically erase every other provision of the FACE Act. Questions involving severability — whether an unconstitutional portion of a law can be removed while leaving the remainder intact — can become complicated and depend on the statute and the court’s reasoning.
Still, Dys’ observation points to an unusual feature of Lemon’s defense.
The FACE Act has become politically contentious in recent years, particularly among conservatives who accused the Biden administration of using it aggressively against pro-life activists while failing to pursue comparable cases involving attacks or disruptions directed at churches and pregnancy resource centers.
Those critics might therefore welcome a successful constitutional challenge to the statute even while strongly disagreeing with Lemon’s conduct at the church.
That creates a strange alignment: Lemon is attempting to avoid prosecution by challenging a portion of a law that has historically been strongly defended by abortion-rights advocates, while some conservative opponents of the FACE Act could potentially benefit from the legal precedent his case creates.
Lemon’s attorneys aren’t relying exclusively on that argument.
According to CBS News, his legal team is also alleging vindictive prosecution. They contend that the Trump administration targeted Lemon because of his political views and public criticism of President Donald Trump.
The government will have an opportunity to contest those claims, and Lemon remains entitled to the presumption of innocence on the criminal charges.
There is also an important distinction between Lemon’s motivations and the possible consequences of his legal strategy. Challenging the religious-worship provision does not establish that Lemon wants abortion-clinic protections eliminated. Defense attorneys routinely make every viable argument available to protect their clients, regardless of what broader political consequences a favorable ruling might eventually produce.
But courts create precedent, and precedent doesn’t necessarily remain confined to the political circumstances that produced it.
For decades, the FACE Act has been associated most prominently with protecting access to abortion facilities. Congress also wrote religious worship into the law.
Lemon now wants the latter protection curtailed as part of his effort to escape prosecution.
