2026-02-12T10:12:18-0500 / CBS新闻
法律专家表示,针对记者唐·莱蒙和其他八人的起诉书可能会被驳回,因为指控所依据的条款被认为存在重大宪法缺陷,以至于司法部民权司从未试图用该条款起诉干扰宗教场所活动的行为。
1月29日的起诉书称,被告在圣保罗市教堂参与反对移民和海关执法局(ICE)的抗议活动,违反了《FACE法案》。该法案禁止人们恐吓或干扰他人行使宪法赋予的宗教信仰自由权利,同时还指控他们犯有阴谋干涉个人宗教权利的重罪。
他们定于周五首次出庭受审。
一些前民权司律师表示,问题在于《FACE法案》中针对宗教场所干扰行为的刑事定罪条款,从根本上错误表述了美国宪法第一修正案赋予人们的权利。
他们指出,第一修正案保护个人宗教自由免受政府干涉,但并未保护他们免受私人个体(如起诉书中指控的抗议者和记者)的干涉。
国会于1994年通过《FACE法案》,旨在应对女性在生殖健康诊所面临的威胁和恐吓日益增多的问题。
此后,司法部仅在起诉被指控干扰此类诊所就医的案件时使用过该法案,从未用于宗教场所相关案件——因为法院认定,干扰生殖健康诊所的就医行为会影响州际商业活动。
与宗教场所相关的法律宪法问题,是检察官从未在宗教自由案件中尝试使用该条款的部分原因。
这也只是前司法部官员认为可能导致案件迅速驳回的一系列警示信号之一。
“这不是《FACE法案》的合法使用。这完全超出了该法律通过时的核心目的。如果这些案件被迅速驳回,我不会感到惊讶,”前民权司助理司法部长克里斯汀·克拉克表示。
司法部发言人未回应关于在本案中使用《FACE法案》的决定的置评请求。
缺乏合理根据且无职业检察官参与
从司法部民权司试图起诉莱蒙、记者乔治亚·福特、莱蒙的司机以及参加抗议活动的当地活动人士开始,官员们就遇到了障碍。
莱蒙的律师此前表示,他是作为记者报道此次活动的,其活动受第一修正案保护。
支持投诉的宣誓书由一名任职不到一年的ICE特工提交。此类案件的宣誓书通常由FBI特工提交,因为他们负责调查刑事民权侵犯案件。
明尼苏达州地方法官道格·米科驳回了对莱蒙和其他四人依据《FACE法案》提出的轻罪指控以及另一项指控他们合谋侵犯教会信徒权利的重罪指控。
他还驳回了对其他几名被捕者(包括著名当地活动人士内基马·利维·阿姆斯特朗和尚蒂尔·艾伦)的《FACE法案》指控,在逮捕令的页边空白处写下”缺乏合理根据”。
“这不是对第一修正案权利的起诉——这次起诉本身就是对第一修正案权利的侵犯,”阿姆斯特朗的律师乔丹·库什纳告诉CBS新闻。
当司法部要求首席法官审查米科的决定,而首席法官无法像司法部期望的那样迅速回应时,司法部要求联邦上诉法院进行干预,强制下级法院签署逮捕令,但该法院拒绝了这一要求。
在与上诉相关的法庭文件中,美国明尼苏达州联邦地区首席法官帕特里克·希尔特兹也批评了针对记者的证据力度,指出”没有证据表明他们从事了任何犯罪行为或合谋犯罪”。
与此同时,明尼苏达州美国检察官办公室的职业检察官也拒绝参与此案,因为他们担心被告没有实施联邦犯罪的证据,一位消息人士此前向CBS新闻透露。
尽管面临法官和职业检察官的阻力,司法部民权司仍仓促起诉莱蒙、福特及其他同案被告,指控他们违反《FACE法案》并合谋干扰教会信徒的宗教权利。
起诉书仅提及政治任命的司法部民权司律师。
案件主辩护律师之一奥兰多·桑扎的背景
桑扎是一名未获成功的俄亥俄州共和党国会候选人,2022年法学院毕业,截至目前唯一的检控经验是在汉密尔顿县检察官办公室担任实习生、法律书记员和助理检察官,时长约一年半。
起诉书返回后加入此案的第二位民权司律师格雷塔·吉塞克也是2022年法学院毕业生,现被分配到民权司上诉部门。
第三位被加入案件的律师乔希·朱克曼是2020年法学院毕业生,在加入司法部前,曾在跨国律师事务所Gibson Dunn担任四年助理律师。
在CBS新闻寻求置评几小时后,民权司代理副助理司法部长罗伯特·基南正式参与此案。基南此前曾在法院首次出庭时代表部分被告。
据法庭文件审查显示,基南是加州奥兰治县美国检察官办公室的资深联邦检察官,但未处理过许多民权案件。
法庭文件和知情人士称,他曾是2001年一起涉及两名监狱员工的法律起诉案的共同法律顾问,其中一人在审判中被无罪释放。
去年,他辩称加州一名被判民权侵犯罪的副警长应撤销重罪指控,不应入狱服刑,这一主张导致多名同事辞职。
几个月后,他被派往路易斯维尔处理一名前路易斯维尔警察的判决,该警察因侵犯布雷娜·泰勒的民权而被定罪,司法部建议法官仅判处一天监禁和三年缓刑。
“司法部坚定支持受信任执行联邦法律的高素质律师,”司法部女发言人告诉CBS新闻。
她补充说,桑扎帮助在俄亥俄州的重罪强奸案中定罪一名被告,吉塞克在联邦地区法院和上诉法院担任书记员期间处理过”复杂的民事和刑事事务”。
基南”是一名拥有25年以上经验的职业联邦检察官”。
起诉书提交后,地方法官米科斥责本案律师在公开法庭文件中泄露密封文件细节,并警告未来再发生此类行为”将不予容忍”。
“当联邦检察官决定对某人提起刑事指控时,司法部必须有经验丰富、明智且老练的检察官来审查这一过程,”前联邦检察官吉恩·罗西表示。”当政治介入这一过程时,坏事就会发生。”
明尼苏达州案件中的一名被告本周提出驳回起诉书的动议,称起诉书未能说明对其的联邦犯罪指控。
在邦迪任内《FACE法案》执行不均衡
《FACE法案》(《禁止干扰进入诊所法案》)在31年前通过时,主要目的是防止生殖健康诊所的患者在就医时面临威胁。
为获得国会共和党人的支持,犹他州共和党参议员奥林·哈奇将法案范围扩大到包括宗教场所,作为与民主党人的妥协。
多年来,司法部成功起诉了试图阻挠生殖健康诊所就医的反堕胎者和支持堕胎权利的活动人士。
前民权司检察官劳拉-凯特·伯恩斯坦表示,该法律中与生殖健康相关部分之所以成功,是因为法院认定生殖健康诊所是商业机构,因此涉及州际商业活动。
“有大量诉讼和巡回法院判决支持《FACE法案》中与生殖健康相关部分的合宪性,”她告诉CBS新闻,并指出医疗机构的运营本质上具有州际性,因为它们会接收医疗用品并为来自其他州的患者提供服务。
然而,教堂通常是地方性机构,不涉及州际商业活动。这一点以及宪法问题,使得将该条款用于刑事诉讼变得不可行。
“实际上不存在州际商业条款的依据,”她指出,而起诉书也未提及相关条款。
尽管司法部试图在本案中使用《FACE法案》作为检控工具,却在其他情况下缩减了执法力度。
特朗普总统就职三天后,他赦免了近二十名因《FACE法案》被起诉的反堕胎活动人士。
次日,前代理助理司法部长查德·米泽尔下令民权司立即驳回三起涉及反堕胎活动人士的未决《FACE法案》案件,并要求在获得部门主管许可前停止所有新案件的起诉。
帕姆·邦迪上任第一天便下令武器化工作组审查拜登任期内的所有《FACE法案》起诉,检查是否存在对保守派基督徒的不公平针对。
据工作组计划的直接知情人士称,这项审查仍在进行中。
与此同时,司法部允许涉及危机妊娠中心抗议者的《FACE法案》案件继续进行,这些中心通常会劝阻女性堕胎。
在佛罗里达州中区一起类似案件中,司法部职业民权检察官被允许继续起诉支持堕胎权利的活动人士——他们被指控试图吓唬在危机妊娠中心咨询堕胎替代方案的志愿者和工作人员。
出庭受审的被告最终在2025年3月被判处120天监禁。
一些前司法部律师表示,《FACE法案》执行上的不一致,证明司法部将法律武器化以打击特朗普的政治对手。
“我们看到,司法部在民权法律的执行中,不是为了保护这个国家人民的民权,而是为了推进其政治议程,”前民权司副助理司法部长乔纳森·史密斯表示,”我认为这次使用《FACE法案》符合这一模式。”
Civil rights attorneys predict charges against Don Lemon, others will be dismissed, citing flaws in FACE Act
2026-02-12T10:12:18-0500 / CBS News
The indictment against journalist Don Lemon and eight others will likely be dismissed because it hinges on a charge that is viewed as so constitutionally flawed that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has never attempted to use it to prosecute interference in a house of worship, legal experts say.
The Jan. 29 indictment alleges that the defendants’ involvement in an anti-ICE protest at the Cities Church in St. Paul violated the FACE Act, which prohibits people from intimidating or interfering with people exercising their constitutional freedom to practice religion. It also charges them with a felony of conspiring to interfere with individuals’ religious rights.
They are due to be arraigned on Friday.
The problem, some former Civil Rights Division lawyers say, is that the section in the FACE Act criminalizing interference at houses of worship fundamentally misstates the rights people have under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects individuals’ religious freedom from government interference. But it does not protect them from interference by private individuals, like the protesters and journalists charged in the indictment, they say.
Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 to address rising concerns about threats and intimidation that women were facing at reproductive health clinics.
Since then, it has only been used by the Justice Department to prosecute people accused of interfering with access to medical care at such clinics — and not at houses of worship — because courts have found that interfering with access to a reproductive health clinic impacts interstate commerce.
The constitutional problems with the law, as related to worshipers, are part of the reason prosecutors have never attempted to use it in a religious freedom case.
It’s also just one in a series of red flags that former Justice Department officials believe could spell trouble for the case and lead to a quick dismissal.
“This is not a legitimate use of the FACE Act. This is wholly outside the core purpose that the law was passed, and I will not be surprised if these cases are quickly thrown out,” said Kristen Clarke, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about the decision to use the FACE Act in this case.
No probable cause and no career prosecutors
From the moment the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division tried to charge Lemon, journalist Georgia Fort, Lemon’s driver and local activists who attended the protest, officials have run into road blocks.
Lemon’s attorney has previously said he was there to cover the event in his capacity as a journalist, whose activities are protected by the First Amendment.
The affidavit in support of the complaint was made by an ICE agent with less than a year of experience. Affidavits in cases like this are usually filed by FBI agents, since they are the ones investigating criminal civil rights violations.
Doug Micko, a magistrate judge in the District of Minnesota, rejected arrest warrants for Lemon and four others on the FACE Act misdemeanor charge and a second felony civil rights charge alleging they conspired to violate the churchgoers’ rights.
He also rejected the FACE Act charge for several others who were arrested, including prominent local activists Nekima Levy Armstrong and Chauntyll Allen, writing “no probable cause” in the margin of the warrants.
“This isn’t a prosecution of First Amendment rights — this prosecution is a violation of First Amendment rights,” Levy Armstrong’s attorney Jordan Kushner told CBS News.
When the Justice Department asked the chief judge to review Micko’s decision, and he was unable to respond as quickly as the department wanted, it asked a federal appellate court to intervene and force the lower court to sign the arrest warrants. That court declined to do so.
In court filings related to the appeal, Minnesota Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz also criticized the strength of the evidence against the journalists, noting “there is no evidence” that they “engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.”
Career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, meanwhile, also refused to get involved in the case because they were concerned about the lack of evidence that the defendants had committed a federal crime, a source previously told CBS News.
Despite resistance from judges and career prosecutors, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division rushed to indict Lemon, Fort, and the co-defendants for violating the FACE Act and for conspiring to interfere with the churchgoers’ religious rights.
The indictment only names politically appointed Justice Department lawyers in the Civil Rights Division.
File photo identifying Justice Department Civil Division counsel Orlando Sonza as a 2022 Criminal Division Legal Summer Intern and then law clerk in the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office. Sonza’s personnel file in Hamilton County, obtained through public records request
One of the main attorneys assigned to the case — Orlando Sonza — is a failed Ohio Republican congressional candidate who graduated from law school in 2022 and whose only prosecutorial experience until now entailed working in the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office over the course of about a year and a half as an intern, a law clerk and assistant prosecutor, according to his personnel file seen by CBS News.
A second Civil Rights Division attorney who was added to the case after the indictment was returned, Greta Gieseke, is also a 2022 law school graduate who is assigned to the Civil Rights Division’s appellate section.
A third lawyer added to the case, Josh Zuckerman, is a 2020 law school graduate who worked as an associate for four years at the multinational law firm Gibson Dunn before joining the Justice Department.
A few hours after CBS News sought comment, Civil Rights Division Acting Deputy Associate Attorney General Robert Keenan, who previously appeared in court during an initial appearance for several of the defendants, formally entered an appearance in the case.
Keenan is a longtime federal prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Orange County, California, though he has not handled many civil rights matters, a review of court filings show.
He was co-counsel on a 2001 color of law prosecution involving two jail employees, one of whom was acquitted at trial, according to court filings and sources familiar with the matter.
Last year, he argued that a local deputy sheriff convicted of civil rights violations in California should have the felony counts struck and should not serve prison time, prompting several of his colleagues to resign.
A few months later, he was dispatched to Louisville to handle the sentencing for a former Louisville police officer who was convicted of violating Breonna Taylor’s civil rights, where the Justice Department recommended the judge to impose a sentence of just one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
“The Department of Justice stands firmly behind the highly qualified attorneys entrusted with enforcing federal law,” a department spokeswoman told CBS News.
She added that Sonza helped convict a defendant in a felony rape trial in Ohio, while Gieseke handled “complex civil and criminal matters” while clerking in federal district and appellate courts.
Keenan, she added, “is a career federal prosecutor with more than 25 years of experience.”
Since the indictment was returned, Magistrate Judge Micko has scolded the lawyers on the case for divulging the details of sealed filings in public court documents, and warned them that future violations “will not be tolerated.”
“When a federal prosecutor makes a decision to charge someone criminally, it is imperative that the Justice Department have a seasoned, sage and experienced prosecutor to vet that process,” said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor. “When politics enters that process, bad things happen.”
One defendant in the Minnesota case filed a motion this week to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it fails to state a federal offense against him.
Uneven enforcement of FACE Act under Bondi
When it was enacted 31 years ago, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, was primarily intended to prevent patients at reproductive health clinics from facing threats as they sought care.
To win Republican support in Congress, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah extended it to include houses of worship as a compromise with Democrats.
Over the years, the Justice Department has successfully secured convictions against both abortion opponents trying to block access to reproductive health clinics and abortion rights activists.
The reason why that part of the law has proven successful is because courts have found that reproductive health clinics are commercial businesses, and therefore engaged in interstate commerce, said Laura-Kate Bernstein, a former Civil Rights Division prosecutor who handled FACE Act cases.
“There is a wealth of litigation and circuit court decisions holding that the reproductive health aspect of the FACE Act are constitutional,” she told CBS News, noting that health care clinics are “inherently interstate” in how they operate because they receive medical supplies and offer services to out-of-state patients.
A church, however, is typically a local operation that is not engaged in interstate commerce. That and the constitutional concerns have made it untenable to use in any criminal case, she said.
“There really is no interstate commerce clause hook,” she said, noting that the indictment also fails to cite one.
Even as the Justice Department has sought to use the FACE Act as a prosecutorial tool in this case, it has scaled back enforcement in other contexts.
Three days after President Trump took office, he issued nearly two dozen pardons to anti-abortion activists who were charged in FACE Act cases.
The following day, the former acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle ordered the Civil Rights Division to immediately dismiss three pending FACE Act prosecutions involving anti-abortion activists and to cease pursuing any new cases unless they had permission from the head of the division.
Pam Bondi, on her first day as attorney general, ordered the Weaponization Working Group to review prior FACE Act prosecutions during President Joe Biden’s tenure to see if they unfairly targeted conservative Christians.
A review of those cases is still pending and is expected to be conducted, according to one source with direct knowledge of the working group’s plans.
At the same time, however, the Justice Department has allowed FACE Act cases involving protesters at crisis pregnancy centers that discourage abortions to continue without interference.
In one such case, the Justice Department’s career civil rights prosecutors were permitted to proceed with a criminal case in Florida’s Middle District against abortion rights activists who were accused of trying to scare volunteers and workers at a crisis pregnancy clinic that counseled on alternatives to abortion.
The defendant who went to trial was ultimately sentenced to a 120-day prison term in March 2025.
Some former department lawyers say the uneven application of the FACE Act is evidence of the weaponization of the Justice Department against Mr. Trump’s political enemies.
“We have seen across the civil rights statutes that the department enforces the ways in which they have weaponized the use of these laws, not to protect the civil rights of people of this country, but to further their political agenda,” said Johnathan Smith, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division.
“I think this use of the FACE Act is consistent with that pattern.”