October 20, 2026
Do the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly mean that a group of people can assemble in your living room without your permission and speak their mind ? I don't know of anyone-no matter what his political persuasion-who would affirm such a thing.
But what about assembling and speaking in "public accommodations"; that is, facilities that are open to the general public and offer goods and/or services for sale ? Opinions differ, and are usually based on the content of what is spoken.
And what about assembling and speaking in a church to which a group has not been invited ? Again, I don't know of anyone-no matter what his religious persuasion-who would affirm such a thing. But we are living in strange times.
Back in January, anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activists entered Cities Church-a non-denominational church in St. Paul, Minnesota-during a church service and disrupted the service, traumatized children, blocked the walkways, and chanted: "Who shut this down ? We shut this down!" The reason ? One of the church's pastors worked for ICE.
A federal grand jury indicted dozens of people on two counts:
Count One: Conspiracy Against Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship 18 U.S.C. § 241
Count Two: Injure, Intimidate, and Interfere with Exercise of Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship U.S.C. § 248(a)(2),(b), § 2(a)
Attorneys representing the activists have now filed nearly 50 motions in the federal district court in St. Paul, including requests to have the charges dismissed.
One motion states: "There was no alleged conduct that crossed the line into violence, threats or anything that went beyond free speech. The protest was limited to pure speech and assembly." The defendants argue that the government is attempting to punish them for exercising their "right to free speech and freedom of assembly" because their "political action happened to take place in a church." The filing also claims that "there are no allegations supporting a conclusion that defendants' actions were intended to interfere with freedom of worship."
The First Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Clearly, there is no right to free speech and freedom of assembly on someone else's property. Your First Amendment rights end at the church door, just like they end at my front door. Property owners are not Congress. They can institute any policy that restricts speech or assembly on their property.
To allege that the activity of anti-ICE activists is covered by the First Amendment is ludicrous. Conservatives have rightly denounced liberals who defend the actions of the anti-ICE activists. But in doing so they have generally ignored the question of property rights and focused solely on the horrendous actions of the activists such as telling a child that his parents were Nazis and going to hell. Conservatives have also generally supported federal charges against the activists. The White House announced that the Justice Department has "launched a full investigation into the despicable incident that took place" at the church. Assembling uninvited on private property and speaking your mind is trespassing-a state or local offense-whether it be in a home, on a private golf course, or in a church. The federal government should have nothing to do with it.
Conservatives only selectively defend property rights and federalism. When it comes to the subject of drugs, or even just marijuana, they are quick to throw property rights and federalism out the window and defend the federal government's war on drugs. And even when it comes to freedom of speech, conservatives waver when it comes to liberals doing the talking and generally support President Trump's attacks on the First Amendment.
Only libertarians can be counted on to consistently uphold property rights, federalism, and the First Amendment.