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

[Ruminations]

Below is a excellent analysis of the case by legal experts. It's very long but worth reading if you want to understand the legal issues here. They raise many pros and cons for each party to the case.

Minnesota FACE Off: A Deep Dive Into the St. Paul Church Protest Case

Unpacking the Don Lemon indictment, its factual allegations, the elements the government must prove to convict, and the potential defenses available to the accused.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Good source.

It is a hard slog to read it. I read it once, and I'm not sure if it made me feel smarter or dumber, lol.

But the gist I'm getting is, the case getting to trial is an uphill battle, with plenty of potential motions that could derail it, but ultimately, the case has fair odds and might survive several motions to throw it out. The legal arguments for throwing it out are complex and varied.

It also gave me the impression that a lot of wrangling will be necessary for a long time before we know if this is going to trial, especially if motions to dismiss are considered one at a time and don't succeed.

The article seemed to think that if the case went to trial, that is where it is even less promising for the prosecution. Because, per this article, the overt acts charged are not supported by the video evidence.

Tomorrow will be an exciting day.

MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Nope, did you even read them? They're both about abortion clinics, not churches. This case we're talking about is a protest at a church, not a clinic. Different clauses of the Face Act. The Lawfare article I cited above says that that law has likely never been applied with regards to a church. This case were talking about would be the first time.

Since you seem to have difficulty reading, this is from your first link.



From the second link,



Please read better.

What the quoted poster can't or won't understand is that they are inseparable. These cases deal with alleged violations of the First Amendment rights of protestors. The courts have said repeatedly, that governments can adopted statutes covering this.

Just recently, 2025, SCOTUS had a chance to revisit this concept in a different case; they declined to hear the case.

Again, it is an example trying to insert a personal opinion in place of the law.


IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Below is a excellent analysis of the case by legal experts. It's very long but worth reading if you want to understand the legal issues here. They raise many pros and cons for each party to the case.

Minnesota FACE Off: A Deep Dive Into the St. Paul Church Protest Case

Unpacking the Don Lemon indictment, its factual allegations, the elements the government must prove to convict, and the potential defenses available to the accused.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The photos in your linked article are pretty enlightening.

Don Lemon holding the front door open (from the outside) so parishioners can leave. Other parishioners leaving in an unobstructed manner through a side door. Photo taken from way off to the edge of the interior, away from the protesters. The pastor speaking freely with Don, who was standing to the side of the pastor.

imo

 

[Ruminations]

Legal arguments by Lemon himself are irrelevant. He's not a lawyer nor a First Amendment expert, and is not going to be arguing his case in court. He will be well represented by real experts.

Also, Lemon and the pastor were talking about the protesters, not Lemon.

The pastor himself does not conflate Lemon with the protesters.

Lemon was not talking about himself when he said to the pastor that the protesters had a first amendment right.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

It's possible the injured person didn't yell out "hey, journalist, I have a broken arm!" Which may have been why it wasn't reported. Or the diagnosis was made after the fact. Plus there's lots of people who have walked around with a fracture and not even known it until it gets progressively worse. So on the scale of one to ten I consider 'a journalist' not being aware of a broken arm in the church a ten.

It's possible it didn't happen.

The sworn statement is by the affiant, who knows this by apparent hear-say.

They just appear have knowledge of a broken arm and are willing to swear to it, to the best of their knowledge and belief. That does not make their statement perjury, but it probably is inadmissible. The person with the broken arm, witnesses to the fall, or a medical professional that treated it might be appropriate witnesses whose testimony and sworn statements might be admissible. We haven't seen any of that.

And the actual witness to the broken arm would need testimony that can stand up to cross examination. Suppose a witness to the fall agrees on cross examination that it was not really clear the person who fell was running or appeared afraid? What if there was a patch of ice on the ground where she fell? What if a child shifted, and she fell onto her arm that was not holding the child she wanted to protect from injury? What if she was seen walking out the office door just as casually as other worshippers walked from the other doors? The words in the indictment are just a rumor at this point. It's not admissible evidence.

The affidavit does not assert first-hand knowledge of the alleged injury, There is an implication that this was learned or corroborated from a log entry of a 911 call to a dispatcher the next day, the day after the protest.

That said, I don't wish a broken arm on anybody. No matter if it's running from a protest, catching an escaping child, or a random slip and fall in cold Minneapolis, broken arms hurt.


MOO

 

[branmuffin]

It's possible it didn't happen.

The sworn statement is by the affiant, who knows this by apparent hear-say.

They just appear have knowledge of a broken arm and are willing to swear to it, to the best of their knowledge and belief. That does not make their statement perjury, but it probably is inadmissible. The person with the broken arm, witnesses to the fall, or a medical professional that treated it might be appropriate witnesses whose testimony and sworn statements might be admissible. We haven't seen any of that.

And the actual witness to the broken arm would need testimony that can stand up to cross examination. Suppose a witness to the fall agrees on cross examination that it was not really clear the person who fell was running or appeared afraid? What if there was a patch of ice on the ground where she fell? What if a child shifted, and she fell onto her arm that was not holding the child she wanted to protect from injury? What if she was seen walking out the office door just as casually as other worshippers walked from the other doors? The words in the indictment are just a rumor at this point. It's not admissible evidence.

The affidavit does not assert first-hand knowledge of the alleged injury, There is an implication that this was learned or corroborated from a log entry of a 911 call to a dispatcher the next day, the day after the protest.

That said, I don't wish a broken arm on anybody. No matter if it's running from a protest, catching an escaping child, or a random slip and fall in cold Minneapolis, broken arms hurt.


MOO

In agreement 100%.