Civil Liberties Group Says First Amendment Does Not Protect Disruptions of Church Services

January 27, 2026

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan civil liberties organization, is pushing back against claims that the First Amendment shields protestors like the ones who disrupted Sunday services last week at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Christianity Daily reports that the foundation, in a written statement, emphasized that houses of worship are private spaces, not public forums and that entering a church to disrupt a service is outside the scope of constitutionally-protected activity.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression board member Samuel J. Abrams clarified that First Amendment protections do not extend to private property where the owners have not consented to expressive activity.

Abrams wrote, “There is no First Amendment right to enter a house of worship and engage in conduct that effectively shuts down a religious service, even as part of a protest. Nor does anybody have the right to remain on private property after being asked by its owner or authorized representatives to leave.”

According to Christianity Today, the clarification follows an incident on Jan. 18 in which demonstrators linked to Black Lives Matter and the Racial Justice Network disrupted a Sunday worship service, shouting at congregants and demanding that a pastor resign because of his role in leading a local ICE office.

Three individuals have been arrested by federal authorities in connection with the incident and are being charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994, which also applies to interference with religious worship.

In his statement, Abrams wrote, “The First Amendment is often misunderstood as an affirmative license to protest anywhere. It is not. It protects individuals from government suppression of speech; it does not compel private institutions to host expression they do not invite. Treating the First Amendment as a roaming permission slip for disruption misstates both the law and the logic of free expression.”

Photo: top, Credit: Facebook/Secretary Kristi Noem