MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

[Sillybilly]

With due respect, I think this argument is very faulty. Churches are private property- period, full stop.

Just because most churches allow public access where as some say, Ultra Orthodox Synagogues and Hindu temples can be very restrictive does not diminish the core concept that nobody has an inherent right to protest inside a church.

I was addressing the trespassing aspect not any right to protest.

 

[Friday Fan]

Churches are private property because they are not owned by the govenment, but members of the public walk into churches worldwide, every single day. AFAIK, the Cities Church does not have a "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" sign (although we know churches ARE privately owned). A church is not normally closed to members of the public, of which the group, including Lemon, were members of the public.

IMO, as far as trespassing, if there was no signage and the door was open to members of the public, it then becomes trespassing only when/if they are asked to leave and do not do so. Someone would have to determine a legally required length of time in which they were required to leave before it constitutes trespassing.

IMO

Yep!

Was DL asked to leave and refused? I believe in this case the press would have an obligation to leave.
Then the press goes outside with, "What are they doing that they don't want us to film?"


Was DL charged with trespassing?

 

[PrairieWind]

Churches are private property because they are not owned by the govenment, but members of the public walk into churches worldwide, every single day. AFAIK, the Cities Church does not have a "No Trespassing" or "Private Property" sign (although we know churches ARE privately owned). A church is not normally closed to members of the public, of which the group, including Lemon, were members of the public.

IMO, as far as trespassing, if there was no signage and the door was open to members of the public, it then becomes trespassing only when/if they are asked to leave and do not do so. Someone would have to determine a legally required length of time in which they were required to leave before it constitutes trespassing.

IMO

Do we know when the police arrived? Are they charged with trespassing?

 

[Cryptic]

I was addressing the trespassing aspect not any right to protest.

Even in regards to trespass. Churches are fully private and my bet is that a lack of "Keep out" etc. signs does not diminish that legal status in any way.

Wooded lots may require such signage and / or being asked to leave. But... my guess is that churches are right up there with private homes in regards to being innately private, with or with out signs.

 

[Ontario Mom]

DBM

 

[SouthAussie]

Someone would have to determine a legally required length of time in which they were required to leave before it constitutes trespassing.

IMO

Yes, because Don left 7 minutes after he was asked to leave. Is that "too long" or "reasonable" when asked to leave a seemingly-crowded and chaotic private property?

A pastor at one point asks him to leave. Seven minutes later, he exits the church building.

Feds arrest Don Lemon, Minnesota journalist and 2 others over church protest

Lemon was arrested by U.S. agents days after covering an anti-ICE protest at a St. Paul, Minn., church. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the protest a "coordinated attack."

www.wuft.org

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

A journalist can be an agitator. imo

How many protesters did Lemon interview while inside the church? Did he ever once question the behavior of the protesters?

 

[CSIDreamer]

The main thing I’ve said over and over in this thread is that Don was working as a journalist. I am separating him from the protestors because he was not one and frankly, I think it’s a mistake for the DOJ to try to lump him in to this indictment with the protestors because they are completely removing his agency as a journalist from the situation. I believe that’s why 4 judges (1 solo magistrate judge and a panel of 3 judges) had rejected to issue an arrest warrant for him. I am not debating whether the protestors should be arrested. I would like to see evidence that Don acted as a co- conspirator to plan or set up the protest and I haven’t seen that at this point. If evidence comes out about this, I’m more than willing to change my stance about this case. All MOO.

First, I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting our sides with you.

I've been mulling something over all day. And this is for everyone, not just directed at you.

If a journalist, who is normally protected under the first amendment, intentionally infringes on someone else's first amendment rights (including the FACE act) are they still a protected journalist or just someone breaking the law?

Food for thought, folks.

JMO

 

[LAborn]

Here’s an interview with Nekima Armstrong regarding Don Lemon’s involvement. She mentions that Don saw a flyer posted with basic details about the event and he reached out to her to ask questions about the protest.

Edit: I highly recommend everyone spend the 5 minutes to watch the video of her interview about the event. It’s very informative and gives a lot of details about how everything happened and how the DOJ is handling this case.

Nekima Levy Armstrong says Don Lemon didn't know where he was going | CUOMO

Civil rights attorney and ordained minister Nekima Levy Armstrong, the first person arrested for entering the church alongside Don Lemon, joins NewsNation to discuss Lemon’s arrest.

www.yahoo.com

Thank you!! I couldn't get that link to work, but found it on youtube. Agree, everyone should watch this!

 

[Summerliz03]

If a journalist, who is normally protected under the first amendment, intentionally infringes on someone else's first amendment rights (including the FACE act) are they still a protected journalist or just someone breaking the law?

Food for thought, folks.

JMO

I guess that is definitely the million dollar question here! I know the saying is your rights end where mine begin, but again, I think it will be up to the DOJ to prove this. I am curious to see how the first hearing on the 9th goes. All MOO.

 

[Cryptic]

I've been mulling something over all day. And this is for everyone, not just directed at you.

If a journalist, who is normally protected under the first amendment, intentionally infringes on someone else's first amendment rights (including the FACE act) are they still a protected journalist or just someone breaking the law?

Based on @PrairieWind 's answer to a similar question, I am betting that a journalist infringing on amendment rights is no longer functioning as a journalist.

But.... as Prariewind related, it likely does not matter in this case. Rather, the core concept seems to be: Did a human infringe on amendment rights in a place of worship?

The human's occupation, even as a journalist, does not seem to matter.

 

[otto]

Hey Otto, do you know what company DL is representing as a journalist?

What I have read is that he is an independent journalist with a youtube channel. I have not seen that he is affiliated with any news organization.

 

[Hexe]

A journalist can be an agitator. imo

Of course. That though is not a crime.

How many protesters did Lemon interview while inside the church?

He interviewed protesters before the action.

Did he ever once question the behavior of the protesters?

Not doing that is not a crime, neither does it mean Lemon was a protester himself.

MOO

 

[Hexe]

Rather, the core concept seems to be: Did a human infringe on amendment rights in a place of worship?

Well? Is there any evidence Lemon infringed on amendment rights?

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

First, I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting our sides with you.

I've been mulling something over all day. And this is for everyone, not just directed at you.

If a journalist, who is normally protected under the first amendment, intentionally infringes on someone else's first amendment rights (including the FACE act) are they still a protected journalist or just someone breaking the law?

Food for thought, folks.

JMO

All rights come with responsibilities. I think we all learned that in grade school.
If a person intentionally infringes on another person's rights they have broken the law.
No amount of credentials, fame, or anything else matters.
There aren't any exceptions to this under the federal statute.
Nor should there be.

jmo

 

[Sillybilly]

Do we know when the police arrived? Are they charged with trespassing?

I don't know when police arrived. Members had brought up that there was trespassing but the group is not charged with that.

The charge is:

"According to court documents, Lemon and eight co-defendants were all indicted on one count each of conspiracy against religious freedom at a place of worship and injuring, intimidating and interfering with the exercise of the right of religious freedom at a place of worship. He did not enter a plea on Friday. His next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9 in federal court in Minneapolis. "

 

[Sundog]

Here’s an interview with Nekima Armstrong regarding Don Lemon’s involvement. She mentions that Don saw a flyer posted with basic details about the event and he reached out to her to ask questions about the protest.

Edit: I highly recommend everyone spend the 5 minutes to watch the video of her interview about the event. It’s very informative and gives a lot of details about how everything happened and how the DOJ is handling this case.

Nekima Levy Armstrong says Don Lemon didn't know where he was going | CUOMO

Civil rights attorney and ordained minister Nekima Levy Armstrong, the first person arrested for entering the church alongside Don Lemon, joins NewsNation to discuss Lemon’s arrest.

www.yahoo.com

I'm surprised that there weren't more targeted questions, since Cuomo didn't ask the protest leader if Don Lemon knew about the target of the protest (i.e. the church) when they all met in the parking lot. That was a point at which he could have decided it wasn't appropriate, given the FACT Act and basic journalistic ethics which would likely include not entering a church with protesters and disrupting a church service on a Sunday morning. Whether he knew about what was going to happen at the meet-up or outside of the Church, there were choice points for him before entering the Church. I doubt he was blindfolded on the drive there and suspect he knew where they were going when he got into the vehicle to head over to the Church.

Also, the protest leader in this interview says to Cuomo that the entire group didn't know what they were going to do even while they were sitting in the church before they stood up and started yelling and screaming. The organizer told Cuomo that she decided that something that the Pastor said in his prayer to the congregation made her get up and approach the Pastor and then lead the protest of the group. I find that ingenuous. They were going to protest no matter what. I guess they were looking for a "sign" and decided this would be it. If it wasn't this "sign" it would have been another one. Just ingenuous, imo.

 

[Cryptic]

Do we know when the police arrived? Are they charged with trespassing?

Do you have any input on whether places of worship are like private homes, back yards etc and are inherently private?

If churches etc. are innately private trespass may well still occur even with out being told to leave or having posted "Keep out" signs.

But if places of worship are like stores or wooded lots in regards to innate privacy, then signs or the need to be told to leave comes into play.

What is your opinion? Very interested in it.

 

[PrairieWind]

Well? Is there any evidence Lemon infringed on amendment rights?

MOO

The question is whether Lemon has violated the FACE Act. There is no question he is aware of the planned disruption of a scheduled worship service, and that he enters with them, and during the time of this worship service is interviewing a pastor that has indicated he has asked the protesters to leave. Clearly Lemon's own interview is disrupting the service.

 

[SouthAussie]

If a journalist, who is normally protected under the first amendment, intentionally infringes on someone else's first amendment rights (including the FACE act) are they still a protected journalist or just someone breaking the law?

Food for thought, folks.

JMO

That is exactly what the court will determine. So far, 4 judges have indicated that they saw no probable cause.

" ...but the chief federal judge in Minneapolis declined to allow the case because he saw no probable cause to arrest the longtime journalist."

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-arrest-minnesota-protest-00756892

"A federal appeals court brushed back a secretive, emergency effort by the Justice Department to revive rejected arrest warrants for Don Lemon and four other people prosecutors say committed crimes by barging into a St. Paul church last weekend. ... a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s demand."

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/24/doj-trump-minnesota-don-lemon-protest-00745589