SB 113: Rhoden Tries to Capitalize on St. Paul Anti-ICE Protest to Felonize Interrupting Church Service

Federal agents murder two Minnesotans, and Governor Larry Rhoden’s only response is, nice shootin’, Kristi! But a few anti-ICE protestors disrupt a church service in St. Paul led by an ICE goon boss playing pastor, and Governor Rhoden cries that the Legislature must respond to this “assault” on religious freedom:

The Republican governor announced his support of Senate Bill 113 at his weekly news conference Friday alongside prime sponsor Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff and the bill’s House sponsors, Republican Rep. Scott Odenbach and Republican Rep. Jon Hansen.

“Just last week, religious freedom came under assault just a few miles from here in the Twin Cities,” Rhoden said.

…“If someone tries to target a house of worship, there will be real consequences,” Rhoden said. “We will continue to be a state that doesn’t just talk about freedom.”

(Warning to hired hands: if Larry tells you he needs help rounding up a “few” cattle, he could mean 393, the actual number of road miles between Pierre and St. Paul.)

There are already “real consequences” for “targeting” a house of worship in South Dakota. SDCL 22-19B-4, one provision under South Dakota’s hate crime laws, make it a Class 1 misdemeanor to use “threats or violence” to “intentionally prevent[…] another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended by the religion with such person professes….” That’s up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, which sound like pretty real consequences to me. But those penalties aren’t real enough in Rhoden’s mind: mess with a church, and the bill he’s promoting, SB 113, will double this hate-crime penalty to Class 6 felony: up to two years in the state pen and $4,000 fine.

I have a few (not 393) problems with Rhoden’s rage at in-church ruckus.

First, while disrupting a church service isn’t cool (more effective and legal tactics: picketing across the street with signs, handing out flyers after the service to exiting congregants alerting them to their pastor’s Caesar-serving hypocrisy and calling on them to join the Christian resistance against anti-immigrant violence), I’m not convinced that the protest twisting Rhoden’s knickers constituted “threats or violence”. Trespassing, sure; disorderly conduct, probably; but the protestors didn’t appear to hurt anybody or threaten to hurt anybody, certainly not the way the goons under the pastor’s supervision at his day job are. We can niggle and piggle over those distinctions in court, but as written, SB 113 and the hate-crime statute it amends may not apply at all to my walking into a church and shouting, “Your pastor is violating God’s law! ICE out of Minnesota!”

Second, as we might expect of a man with a thin and conditional grasp of First Amendment rights, Governor Rhoden seems to be prioritizing favored position for his brand of religious expression over consistency in punishment for hate crimes. SB 113 doubles the penalty for preventing practice of religion in SDCL 22-19B-4, but it doesn’t change the penalty in the very next statute for compelling practice of religion. SDCL 22-19B-5 says it’s a Class 1 misdemeanor to use threats or violence “to compel another person to adopt, practice, or profess any particular form of religious belief….”

Now we atheists don’t have church services (seriously, if you’re going to ruin your Sunday morning anyway to get up and go to a meeting, what’s the point?). But if we did, and if I attended, I’d be cross grumpy if some protestors barged in and interrupted. But I’d be really pissed if Larry pinned me to the ground, shouted “Take this and be saved!” and started stuffing communion wafers down my throat. Likewise for Larry and his fellow believers: I’d expect consequences if I somehow prevented him from praying, but I’d expect worse punishment if I stuck a branding iron in his face and demanded he declare on tape that there is no God.

Preventing people from doing what their God tells them to do is generally bad (though religious expressions are not always appropriate, and we still shouldn’t let radicals who read their Qu’ran wrong kill daughters who’ve been raped). Forcing people to do what your God commands is worse. But SB 113 takes the opposite position, saying that simply preventing worship of X is a worse crime than preventing worship of X and forcing worship of Y.

If Governor Rhoden were taking a comprehensive look at hate crimes (a term he appears not to have used in Friday’s press conference) and seeking consistent reforms to protect the freedom of conscience, he would be proposing a bill that ensures the penalty for compelling religious practice is at least as harsh as the penalty for preventing religious practice. Instead, his focus on just one element of South Dakota’s hate crime law shows he’s just looking to score political points for his reëlection campaign with a hot-button right-wing media issue, not keep the scales of justice in true balance.

Related Policy Notes: Back in 2011, the Obama Administration implemented a policy protecting “sensitive locations”—including churches, synagogues, mosques, public religious ceremonies, schools, hospitals, and public demonstrations—from immigration enforcement activities. ICE could not conduct arrests, interviews, searches, or surveillance at such locations without prior approval or an immediate need for enforcement action satisfying certain specific criteria. In 2021, the Biden Administration updated that policy to strengthen and clarify restrictions on ICE activities in or near “protected areas”:

In our pursuit of justice, including in the execution of our enforcement responsibilities, we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being in the most fundamental ways. It is because of the profound impact of our work that we must consider so many different factors before we decide to act. This can make our work very difficult. It is also one of the reasons why our work is noble.

When we conduct an enforcement action – whether it is an arrest, search, service of a subpoena, or other action – we need to consider many factors, including the location in which we are conducting the action and its impact on other people and broader societal interests. For example, if we take an action at an emergency shelter, it is possible that noncitizens, including children, will be hesitant to visit the shelter and receive needed food and water, urgent medical attention, or other humanitarian care.

To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a “protected area.”

This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants [DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Memorandum: Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas, 2021.10.27; retrieved from Internet Archive: Wayback Machine 2026.01.25].

On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded that policy and authorized ICE to interrupt church services and other activities at formerly protected areas.

Governor Rhoden, does the current administration’s rescission of the sensitive-locations/protected-areas policies constitute an assault on religious freedom?