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

[CSIDreamer]

Excerpt from Tricia's post earlier today

That said, the church is not the topic of this thread.

The topic is the arrest of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and whether those arrests were legitimate.

C'mon all y'all.

 

[otto]

No. Churches are not fully private.

Millions of people would be charged with trespassing if they were like private homes. Just about anyone can come and go.

"The First Amendment restricts government action. It does not provide individuals, including journalists, with a general right to access private property without permission.

Churches and houses of worship are private property. Entry without consent, particularly during an active religious service, may constitute trespass regardless of journalistic intent or purpose. Newsgathering does not override property rights, and journalists are subject to the same access limitations as the general public."

Why First Amendment Protections Are Limited in the Don Lemon Arrest — EEW Magazine

We go deeper into First Amendment limits, private property rights, and federal protections for religious worship.

www.eewmagazineonline.com

 

[Luna20]

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.

I wonder if there is protocol for independent journalists. Is there an AP association or chapter where there are guidelines to follow? If not, it’s difficult to know what is within reason.

 

[otto]

I thought we were talking about the actions of Don Lemon.

According to legal documents, Don Lemon is one of the protesters. According to opinions, he is an independent journalist accompanying protesters. One of Don Lemon's journalistic questions for the pastor is whether he is allowed to worship at the church. After he is given permission, he does not worship.

After he was asked to leave, according to legal documents, he remained in the church for another 13 minutes.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I was trying so hard to stay away from this thread. But I have to say this:

If the church was full of protesters and the only people arrested were the journalists documenting it, we have a serious problem with the erosion of free speech and free journalism.

I don't particularly believe the accusations some on this thread are making. I am especially underwhelmed when people think the church protest was bad for children. When federal agents shoot people in the middle of the day on the sidewalks, the trauma to children does not get mentioned. Children should be safe in their own neighborhoods from dangerous federal agents with guns- this is a higher priority than keeping children away from vocal protesters who are unarmed.

Who knows if protesting in this situation was or was not a violation of the church goers rights to go to church? That is for the local police to decide, and issue citations if necessary.

But when the federal government goes out of its way to arrest ONLY the journalists, that is the end of free journalism as we know it.

MOO

IMO, all children should be protected. Just because they go to church shouldn't make them "less than". I think as a society, we might want to become more inclusive when announcing which children are important and which ones are not.

 

[Ruminations]

<modsnip: Quoted post was blurred and not up for discussion>

But the protesters were there because of the "other" job one of the church leaders had. I don't blame them for wanting to protest that, although I am reserving judgement on the actual tactics. Part of me thinks it was a very effective way to get a message out, and part of me is willing to consider that the protesters were too disruptive. I can't decide if I think of the Church as private like a mall? Or private like my living room? This is for the church and local LE to work out, especially if the church wants to file charges.

Protesters who are too disruptive can be arrested. And should be if appropriate.

But journalists are a whole other thing.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

IMO, all children should be protected. Just because they go to church shouldn't make them "less than". I think as a society, we might want to become more inclusive when announcing which children are important and which ones are not.

Well, I agree, of course!

Children were perfectly safe in that church. They were not safe where federal agents were recklessly shooting their guns on the streets.

MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, I agree, of course!

Children were perfectly safe in that church. They were not safe where federal agents were recklessly shooting their guns on the streets.

MOO

Which is a dichotomy (the responses) that is hard to reconcile. imo

 

[Spacemonkey1975]

Don Lemon's perspective is that he has the right to disruptively enter any religious building during a religious meeting and film participants attending that meeting.

The perspective of the religious organization is that uninvited journalists with a rolling camera of people attending the religious meeting is "lawless harassment."

Whose rights need to be protected? The rights of those attending a religious meeting, or those of journalists seeking to publish their perspective of the religious meeting?

"Protesters interrupted a Sunday church service in St. Paul, Minn.
...

Videos posted on social media show protesters chanting at the Cities Church — including calls for “ICE out” — and bringing the service to a halt. Congregants are seen moving to leave the church as the chants continue and worship music begins to play.
...

Ms. Levy Armstrong, the church protest organizer ... said she circulated her plan for interrupting the [religious] service on social media.
...

Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, to which the church belongs, said in a statement that “what occurred was not protest; it was lawless harassment.”
...

“Once the protest started in the church, we did an act of journalism, which was report on it and talk to the people involved, including the pastor, members of the church and members of the organization,” Mr. Lemon said in a recent video. “That’s it. That’s called journalism.”

Mr. Lemon now works as an independent journalist and has his own YouTube show. He was pushed out of CNN in 2023 after 17 years at the cable network, amid criticism that he made sexist comments about women and aging."

Protest at Minnesota Church Service Adds to Tensions Over ICE Tactics

The Justice Department said it would investigate the protest over a pastor’s apparent role in immigration enforcement in the state.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/...e=1.IVA.mp6P.CSmufzYZlUB-&smid=url-share[/URL

http://

From what I understand about the FACE Act, prosecutors have to prove that DL accompanied the protesters to disrupt the service with them or to witness and report on the events. If it is the latter than he and his producer are protected by the First Amendment and are not guilty of a crime as stated in Judge Schultz’s letter to Judge Colloton and Bondi’s petition for appeal.

Also DL did not organize or lead the protest which likely means it would have continued on without him. He could have stayed outside and reported from there but those poor kids would have still been the targets of verbal abuse and intimidation from the protesters only now public and local community take even longer to become aware of what is going on. The pastor already mentioned that a similar event occurred the week before. However, at least now there was one benefit of DL reporting inside the church is that the whole country saw from DL’s recordings and just how disruptive the protests can be in places of worship and the impacts, including emotional distress and psychological trauma, they have on kids. In others words, concern for the children’s welfare received the attention it deserved because it was recorded and featured on MSM by a popular journalist. Not to mention, there were church members that seemed want to talk and share their thoughts publicly as well and the pastor also got to share his viewpoint as well. MOO, but according to NBC and CNN he did not interrupt or interview anybody still worshipping or obstruct or harass those who indicated they clearly did not want to talk or be interviewed on camera.

While the protesters are being held accountable and called out by the public and MSM, there has been an increase in awareness and discussion on balancing acts of civic engagement and protesting without trampling on others’ religious freedoms, places of worship and free speech. Furthermore, despite his clear biasness DL’s platform had to give both a voice to both the protesters and parishioners as he interacted and reported on both. This helped make sure the parishioners got to share their side of the story with MSM and receive support, just like the protesters did, from all communities across the country.

Additionally, DL and his producer did leave within 13 minutes of being asked by the pastor. No, it was not immediate and he could still be held accountable for trespassing but I thought it should be mentioned since the affidavit mentions other incidences involving kids captured by his camera outside as well and he interviews more parishioners and protested.

I am not saying it or DL by any means is perfect but at least by reporting from the inside or at the site of where the actual events or situations occur, and doing so responsibly and respectfully, you have a higher chance of letting everyone get a turn to have their side or voice heard, getting important issues or circumstances on the record even when they are unexpected or escape our initial attention, and letting the story speak for itself by showing events as they occurred and capturing the real impact of them.

the correct interpretation

 

[CSIDreamer]

Well, I agree, of course!

Children were perfectly safe in that church. They were not safe where federal agents were recklessly shooting their guns on the streets.

MOO

IMO Minors should not be subjected to adult problems. Period. Full stop.

 

[otto]

I wonder if there is protocol for independent journalists. Is there an AP association or chapter where there are guidelines to follow? If not, it’s difficult to know what is within reason.

Hard to say. He was a professional journalist until 2023 when he worked for CNN. My guess is that the change from professional to independent is the same as other professionals.

That is, as an employed professional, there are professional ethics and standards that govern what professionals do during, and outside of, work. Violation of those professional ethics can result in job loss. That may be why Don Lemon was let go in 2023.

Professionals who are not employed, but who continue with their craft independently, are no longer governed by professional ethics and standards. That is, those ethics and standards are voluntary. That is not to suggest that Don Lemon no longer adhered to professional ethics and standards, only that he could not experience job loss through violation of those ethics and standards.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[SouthAussie]

IMO Minors should not be subjected to adult problems. Period. Full stop.

I agree. Every single day they are subjected to adult problems, it seems.

imo

 

[Hexe]

According to legal documents, Don Lemon is one of the protesters. According to opinions, he is an independent journalist accompanying protesters.

According to the video footage of the event he was not involved in any actions described in the documents you posted. So what's exactly the point of that exercise?

 

[musicaljoke]

That's really blaming the victims. Did you see the statement from the child to his father? "Daddy, I thought we were going to die." It's in the indictment.

<Snipped for focus>

Children thought they would be shot, while praying in Church! Did you read the affidavit and indictment? After the service, a child is crying and says to his father "Daddy, I thought we were going to die." There are other witness statements in the legal documents posted here on this thread (affidavit and indictment). These children and many of the adults, seniors and others, will be traumatized for the rest of their lives.

There will most certainly be a civil lawsuit by the Church against the individuals present that day, and DL may pay a lot more to the families than he ever would if convicted federally and forced to pay the fine for violating the FACE Act.

The Pastor and congregants need justice, especially the families with children who were there.

Instead of suing, Christians are encouraged to settle disputes through internal mediation (1 Corinthians 6) or to accept being wronged for the sake of maintaining Christian unity and testimony. Lawsuits do not bring healing, understanding or repair broken relationships. The church will never receive justice through a lawsuit, because their mission is to show love and forgiveness.

 

[otto]

IMO Minors should not be subjected to adult problems. Period. Full stop.

There's nothing wrong with protesters wanting to confront those who make decisions about how to detain illegal immigrants. That needs to happen.

The problem is that protesters went into a church filled with families and children during a religious meeting to intentionally cause upset and trauma. Given some of the testimony, it sounds like protesters were angry at the time.

If the protesters wanted to contact one of the church members, they did not make good decisions, especially since the man they were targeting was not at the church.

There is no excuse for this:

FBI affidavit in suport of arrest warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government

This affidavit, submitted by Special Agent Timothy Gerber, outlines the investigation into a group of agitators who disrupted a religious service at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN on January 18, 2026. The group, led by Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen, coordinated their...

www.scribd.com

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[otto]

I'm curious. After protesters entered the church and realized that the man they were targeting was not giving the sermon, that he was not in the church, why didn't they leave?

Their reason for being there was gone. Instead of leaving, they shouted and caused trauma to everyone who was attending church.

Regarding the independent journalist, after he realized that the target of the protest was not in the church, why didn't he leave? What was the story about if he was not there to interview the man who works as a federal agent?

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

<snipped for focus>

From the 8th Circuit Court's decision on the arrest warrants that you posted above, it sounds to me like all four of the judges agreed that there was probable cause for the arrest warrants, but that "the government has failed to establish that it has no other adequate means of obtaining the requested relief."

So to me, the decision wasn't based on not having probable cause for the arrests, but on the latter issue that I bolded above from the Appeal Court's decision.

Perhaps @PrairieWind can provide us, as an attorney, with an understanding of what that means. As a non-lawyer, it sounds to me that the Court's decision was made on a kind of technicality, and not on the issue of probable cause.

Since "probable cause" was not the issue, it appears, then taking the case to a grand jury seems appropriate.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185493/00805439026/2/in-re-united-states-of-america/

BBM

The Federal Magistrate Judge in Minnesota determined that there was enough probable cause to expedite and support a criminal charge for only against 3 out of against 8 defendants. DL was not one of them. He advised prosecutors to reevaluate and edit their affidavits for resubmission or go the route of grand jury if there were time constraints. He would not expedite the process again to make a decision.

As a result, Claiming or citing the emergent need to have the arrest warrants expedited as well for the remaining 5 defendants due to risks that the defendants would target another church, Bondi petitioned the district judges to review and hopefully appeal the magistrate’s judge’s decision. However, Chief Judge Schiltz noted that neither he nor any judge in his jurisdiction or federal court have ever received such a request before DOJ nor thus questioned how to even approach and start such an appeal process. He and the other 2 chief judges from his district ultimately decided not to intervene or determine a decision in this case. Only one, Judge Grasz, communicated that he thought that had probable cause for all 5 warrants. Nonetheless, all three judges confirmed the Magistrate Judge’s original judgement.


IMO/from my understanding

Appeals court rejects DoJ push to charge more people over Minnesota church protest

Setback for justice department as it pursues demonstrators, including Don Lemon who recorded protest as a journalist

www.theguardian.com

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185493/00805437897/1/in-re-united-states-of-america/

 

[otto]

From what I understand about the FACE Act, prosecutors have to prove that DL accompanied the protesters to disrupt the service with them or to witness and report on the events. If it is the latter than he and his producer are protected by the First Amendment and are not guilty of a crime as stated in Judge Schultz’s letter to Judge Colloton and Bondi’s petition for appeal.

Also DL did not organize or lead the protest which likely means it would have continued on without him. He could have stayed outside and reported from there but those poor kids would have still been the targets of verbal abuse and intimidation from the protesters only now public and local community take even longer to become aware of what is going on. The pastor already mentioned that a similar event occurred the week before. However, at least now there was one benefit of DL reporting inside the church is that the whole country saw from DL’s recordings and just how disruptive the protests can be in places of worship and the impacts, including emotional distress and psychological trauma, they have on kids. In others words, concern for the children’s welfare received the attention it deserved because it was recorded and featured on MSM by a popular journalist. Not to mention, there were church members that seemed want to talk and share their thoughts publicly as well and the pastor also got to share his viewpoint as well. MOO, but according to NBC and CNN he did not interrupt or interview anybody still worshipping or obstruct or harass those who indicated they clearly did not want to talk or be interviewed on camera.

While the protesters are being held accountable and called out by the public and MSM, there has been an increase in awareness and discussion on balancing acts of civic engagement and protesting without trampling on others’ religious freedoms, places of worship and free speech. Furthermore, despite his clear biasness DL’s platform had to give both a voice to both the protesters and parishioners as he interacted and reported on both. This helped make sure the parishioners got to share their side of the story with MSM and receive support, just like the protesters did, from all communities across the country.

Additionally, DL and his producer did leave within 13 minutes of being asked by the pastor. No, it was not immediate and he could still be held accountable for trespassing but I thought it should be mentioned since the affidavit mentions other incidences involving kids captured by his camera outside as well and he interviews more parishioners and protested.

I am not saying it or DL by any means is perfect but at least by reporting from the inside or at the site of where the actual events or situations occur, and doing so responsibly and respectfully, you have a higher chance of letting everyone get a turn to have their side or voice heard, getting important issues or circumstances on the record even when they are unexpected or escape our initial attention, and letting the story speak for itself by showing events as they occurred and capturing the real impact of them.

My understanding is that the protest and story were focused on a member of the church who is also a federal agent. That is given by the organizers as the reason that they focused on the church. They believed that a federal agent was at the church.

As soon as they realized that the man at the centre of the journalistic story; the man who is both a church member and federal agent, was not in the church, they should have left. They no longer had any reason to pursue the journalistic story or the protest.

There was no one to interview inside or outside the church related to the protest or the independent journalist's story.

How does law apply when there was essentially no reason for the protest, and no reason for an independent journalist to attend? They made a mistake. They miscalculated. No one at the church had anything to do with detaining illegal immigrants.

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[branmuffin]

I believe Don Lemon livestreamed and had knowledge ahead of time they were going into this church. IMO


Link that talks about the FACE Act and KKK Act https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/us/minnesota-ice-church-protest-face-kkk-act

What if a journalist had been tipped off by ICE that they were going into the church to arrest someone and allowed him inside the church to document when the arrest took place? Would the journalist be guilty of disrupting a church service if he'd been filming it or interviewing the shocked church members?
Because if ICE agents or any police organization can now enter a place of worship to arrest someone then there's no reason to arrest a journalist who is documenting it.

 

[Summerliz03]

My understanding is that the protest and story were focused on a member of the church who is also a federal agent. That is given by the organizers as the reason that they focused on the church. They believed that a federal agent was at the church.

As soon as they realized that the man at the centre of the journalistic story; the man who is both a church member and federal agent, was not in the church, they should have left. They no longer had any reason to pursue the journalistic story or the protest.

There was no one to interview inside or outside the church related to the protest or the independent journalist's story.

How does law apply when there was essentially no reason for the protest, and no reason for an independent journalist to attend? They made a mistake. They miscalculated. No one at the church had anything to do with detaining illegal immigrants.

~ in my opinion ~​

As Ms. Armstrong stated in her interview with Chris Cuomo, her desired effect of the protest was to inform both the parishioners and the public that the church had a pastor that works for ICE. She wasn’t specifically protesting to David Easterwood, but more to spread awareness that churches may not be a safe haven for immigrants if they employ a pastor who is also serving as an ICE agent. So it truly didn’t matter that Mr. Easterwood was there, IMO. But she clearly explains her reasons for protesting that church during her interview.