Progressive media personality Don Lemon is pursuing a legal strategy that could end up undermining one of the lefts favorite tools for shielding abortion providers from public scrutiny.
According to Western Journal, the former CNN anchor is now fighting federal civil rights charges stemming from a January incident in which he joined a disruptive mob that stormed a Minneapolis church service, causing all sorts of chaos and legal fallout. Prosecutors allege that Lemon and his entourage deliberately interrupted worshipers and interfered with the congregations ability to gather, conduct services and exercise religious freedom, conduct that ultimately led to his indictment under federal law.
Those charges brought Lemon into court on Aug. 7, where he reportedly portrayed himself as a victim of unfair treatment and pressed the judge to dismiss the case. Perhaps unsurprisingly to his critics, Lemon made sure to tell the judge all about how unfairly he was being treated and how his indictment should be thrown out, the original report noted, underscoring the familiar progressive narrative that accountability equals persecution.
Central to Lemons defense is an attack on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, a 1990s-era statute long championed by abortion advocates and Democratic administrations. The law criminalizes the use or threat of force, intimidation, or physical obstruction to interfere with access not only to abortion facilities, but also to churches and other places of religious worship.
In a twist that has startled some on the left, Lemon is not challenging the abortion-clinic provisions of the FACE Act, but rather the sections that protect churches. His legal team is arguing that the church-related protections should be struck down, a move that would conveniently narrow the statute in a way that benefits his own case while leaving abortion facilities ostensibly untouched.
Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at the religious liberty firm First Liberty Institute, told the Daily Signal that such a maneuver could easily backfire on Lemons ideological allies. If a court agrees to sever the church protections from the FACE Act, Dys explained, it could create a legal opening to question the entire structure and constitutionality of the law, including the provisions shielding abortion clinics.
Dys underscored the potential boomerang effect with a pointed observation about the political symbolism of such a ruling. 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, he said, highlighting how a progressive activists self-preservation strategy could dismantle a key progressive statute.
The attorney further expressed astonishment that Lemon would risk collateral damage to a law cherished by the abortion lobby in order to save himself from legal jeopardy. Im surprised that he would want to inflict that damage to a law that has protected abortion clinics around the country, Dys added, suggesting that Lemons priorities lie more with personal impunity than with the broader progressive cause.
For many conservatives and pro-life advocates, however, the potential weakening of the FACE Act is hardly unwelcome, even if they have no desire to see Lemon evade responsibility for disrupting a church service. Critics have long argued that the statute is ripe for abuse, functioning less as a neutral civil rights protection and more as a political weapon that can be selectively enforced by whichever administration controls the Justice Department.
The Biden administrations record has only reinforced those concerns, as federal prosecutors have leaned heavily on the FACE Act to pursue pro-life sidewalk counselors and peaceful demonstrators outside abortion facilities. At the same time, the administration has shown far less interest in applying the same law to left-wing activists who vandalize churches or target pregnancy resource centers, even though such conduct plainly falls within the statutes scope.
Lemons legal team is not relying solely on the FACE Act challenge, and has also advanced a more familiar claim of political targeting. Citing CBS News, reports indicate that his attorneys are arguing the indictment should be dismissed as a form of targeted harassment from President Donald Trumps administration, reviving the well-worn progressive trope that any enforcement action against a liberal figure must be rooted in partisan animus.
As the case proceeds, conservatives will be watching closely to see whether Lemons gambit succeeds in chipping away at a law that has long been used to shield abortion providers while punishing pro-life activism. If a progressive icons courtroom maneuver ends up curbing the federal governments ability to selectively prosecute citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights, many on the right may regard that as a rare instance in which the lefts overreach finally turned on itself.
Login