TN lawmakers look to add church protections

Angele Latham

For the Knoxville News Sentinel

USA TODAY NETWORK – TENNESSEE

A recent protest at a Minnesota church that led to the arrest of demonstrators and journalists has spurred Tennessee lawmakers to seek tighter restrictions on protests near or in churches in the Volunteer State.

A group of protesters and journalists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18 after word spread through social media that one of the church’s pastors, David Easterwood, worked for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Easterwood spoke about his role as acting field director of the ICE St. Paul office during a news conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in October 2025. Court filings regarding operations in Minnesota identify Easterwood as working for the agency.

Videos of the protest showed demonstrators chanting 'ICE out ' and lead pastor Jonathan Parnell shouting: 'Shame on you. This is the house of God and we are worshipping.'

In a statement afterward, the church said protesters 'accosted members of our congregation, frightened children and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat' and said the church was 'evaluating next steps with our legal counsel.'

The event resulted in a number of protesters being arrested, alongside two journalists, including Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort, on charges of conspiracy to violate religious freedom, as well as allegedly intimidating and interfering with the exercise of religious freedom at a place of worship.

Lemon and Fort were both arrested 12 days after the incident, which U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called a 'coordinated attack' on the Minnesota church.

The move has created severe backlash from First Amendment advocates over the arrest of journalists covering a protest.

Abbe Lowell, Lemon’s attorney, called the arrest an 'unprecedented attack on the First Amendment' in a statement.

'The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable,' Lowell said. 'There is no more important time for people like Don to be doing this work.'

Now, three Tennessee legislators have filed two bills seeking to expand restrictions on protests near or in churches, referencing the Minnesota protest as the motivation for the bills.

Expansion of penalties faces pushback for possible unconstitutionality

Two nearly identical bills were filed in the Tennessee General Assembly on the issue.

The first, HB2065 filed Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison, and co-sponsored by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, includes the disruption of a religious assembly, within a structure on the property, to the offense of aggravated criminal trespassing.

The crime would be classified as a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry a jail sentence of up to 11 months and 29 days.

The second, HB2264 filed by Rep. Greg Martin, R-Hamilton, and also co-sponsored by Gardenhire, is more implicative of expressive activity, creating an entirely new offense called 'interfering with a religious institution.'

The bill defines a person as interfering if the person 'acts to intentionally obstruct, disturb, or interfere with the activities' of a religious institution by 'making an utterance, gesture, or display in a manner that is offensive to the sensibilities of an ordinary person,' both inside and outside the building.

The offense would be a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail.

Todd addressed the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on Feb. 11 regarding his bill, stating that 'recent events,' specifically the protest in Minnesota, 'highlighted that we have some gaps in our state’s criminal trespass and public assembly laws, particularly regarding places of worship.'

'(This bill) directly addresses that type of conduct by expanding the aggravated criminal trespass statute to explicitly prohibit entering a house of worship without consent and disrupting a religious service, making such disruptions a Class A misdemeanor,' he said.

Rep. Jason Powell, D-Nashville, pressed Todd on how the bill would not implicate First Amendment protected expressive activity.

'What qualifies as a disruption?' he asked. 'How is it defined? And how can you make sure that a peaceful protest is not unintentionally criminalized?'

Todd said he made sure the bill clarified that the restrictions were only on actions inside houses of worship, not outside.

'We were very careful to not include any religious assembly that was outside in a public space, because then folks have the ability to freely assemble, and even a protester could do that outside venues,' he said. 'So we made sure this was inside a structure.'

Powell said that while he supported preventing violent protest, he felt the bill had 'major constitutional issues.'

'We already have statutes addressing assault, vandalism, disorderly conduct and trespass,' he said. 'And I’m concerned the bill singles out one type of assembly and risks constitutional overbreadth issues. We should be enforcing our existing laws before creating new ones that I believe won’t withstand judicial scrutiny.'

Rep. Gabby Salinas, D-Memphis, expressed concern regarding whether the law would be applied fairly across all places of worship in Tennessee, not just to Christian churches.

Todd affirmed that it would.

Rep. William Lamberth, R-Portland, thanked Todd for his bill and dismissed any First Amendment concerns.

'There’s no such thing as a peaceful protest when you’re on someone else’s private property and you’ve been asked to leave it, be it a church, a home or a business,' he said. 'You can peacefully protest on public property – the First Amendment supports that and protects that. You cannot go on someone else’s private property and do so. And the First Amendment also protects our right to assemble and worship as we please.'

In a request for comment, Martin told The Tennessean that the legislation was 'carefully crafted to guarantee everyone’s First Amendment right is protected.'

'Peaceful protest and free expression are fundamental American freedoms,' he said. 'However, the First Amendment does not grant you the right to disrupt, interfere with or prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights, particularly the free exercise of religion during worship services in houses of worship.'

Gardenhire and Todd did not return a request for comment.

HB2065, filed by Todd, is advancing to the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 18, while HB2264, filed by Martin, is awaiting a hearing in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, also on Feb. 18.

Bills echo protections from controversial FACE Act

Todd and Martin’s bills walk the often-fraught line between the First Amendment rights of religion and speech.

Individuals worshipping within religious institutions have the First Amendment right to practice their religion, while others have the First Amendment right to protest and speak.

However, there is no First Amendment right to disrupt activities on private property, which includes churches.

This stipulation means the most likely point of constitutional concern for these bills will rest on the 'outdoor' phrase within Martin’s bill, which states that 'making an utterance, gesture, or display in a manner that is offensive' outside a worship building 'so near it as to disturb' is considered interference.

The move to further protect religious institutions from protests echoes many of the sentiments found within the federal FACE Act, or the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act – a frequent target of Republican ire.

Charges faced by Lemon, Fort and others from the Minnesota protest draw from the FACE Act, which was originally passed in 1994 to address the rise in violence and blockades of abortion providers.

The act also makes it illegal to intentionally interfere with religious services, or damage places of worship.

However, the FACE Act specifies that it should not be used to 'prohibit any expressive conduct – including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration' – protected by the First Amendment.

The law has seen frequent pushback from Republicans for years, with one Republican congressman from Texas even moving to repeal the act last year.

In January 2025, the Department of Justice released a memo stating that the act had been weaponized against anti-abortion protesters, and the department would be stopping nearly all prosecutions related to the law.

Two Tennesseans who were charged under the FACE Act in 2022 for blockading a Mt. Juliet reproductive health clinic received full pardons from President Donald Trump in 2025.

The USA TODAY Network - The South region’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.

Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@gannett.com, or follow her on Twitter at @angele-latham