The statute is named in the charging docs.
Protesting in a church, depriving others of their right to freely worship is actually, in fact, a federal crime.
I'd highly recommend you read up on it.
Nothing they charged him with says protesting in a church is a crime. Protests can become criminal but they are not automatically a crime in themselves.
You're referencing the Face Act, but if you had read it you would know it requires that someone "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."
And the terms "interfere with," "intimidate" and "physical obstruction" aren't meant by their broad colloquial meanings, they're defined in the Act as:
(2) Interfere with.—The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of
movement.
(3) Intimidate.—The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of
bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4) Physical obstruction.— The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
I haven't seen any evidence that clearly shows protestors did any of that. The embarrassing indictment does try to claim the defendants did those things but the things they allege are just flatly false, like this,
At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy.
The video proves it is laughable to say he obstructed anyone.
There is zero chance Lemon will be convicted of the Face Act, although maybe some protestors could be if there is some evidence the government has that they've been hiding.
The other charge, the KKK Act, requires that someone "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution." The big obstacle with this one will be proving anyone had the specific intent to deprive anyone of their rights let alone conspired with anyone to do so.
This has all been posted here before.
There is another charge, 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) for aiding and abetting, and this has its hurdles as well. I will quote from a Motion to Dismiss filed early in the case by defendant Ian Davis.
E. The Indictment Does Not Plead Aiding-and-Abetting Liability Under 18 U.S.C. § 2
Count Two also invokes aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2, but the indictment does not plead facts sufficient to support such a theory. To state aiding-and abetting liability, the indictment must allege that the defendant took an affirmative act to facilitate the commission of the underlying offense and did so with advance knowledge of the offense’s essential elements and the intent to make it succeed. Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 71–77 (2014).
As applied to Mr. Austin, the indictment does not allege that he assisted, encouraged, directed, or coordinated any other person’s use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction. Nor does it allege facts showing that he had advance knowledge that another person would engage in conduct prohibited by the FACE Act. Instead, the indictment relies on collective descriptions of group activity and protest presence.
The indictment pleads effects, but not the mechanics by which Mr. Austin rendered movement impassable or unreasonably difficult, as § 248(e)(5) requires. Such allegations are insufficient. Mere presence at the scene of an offense, expressive alignment with others, or participation in a demonstration does not establish aiding-and-abetting liability absent allegations of affirmative facilitation and shared criminal intent. United States v. Ivey, 915F.2d 380, 384 (8th Cir. 1990)
That Motion has lots of good stuff about other problems with the charges.
The Face Act clause for churches might also even be unconstitutional. That's explained in the below article which goes into other issues as well.
Unpacking the Don Lemon indictment, its factual allegations, the elements the government must prove to convict, and the potential defenses available to the accused.
www.lawfaremedia.org
moo
