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

[BeginnerSleuther]

Don Lemon's case and the circumstances around it are completely seperate from legal actions taken in a completely different case with completely different circumstances.

Legal cases being processed under the exact same laws are handled differently every single day - and WS is filled with examples of it. One woman kills her child and walks free where another one does the same and spends the rest of her life in jail. Same laws, two completely different outcomes. Is that fair or just? Folks will disagree on that until the end of time, I'm sure.

Does it mean DL shouldn't be held accountable to the same law because someone else was either pardoned or did the same and never charged? Absolutely not. DL knew exactly what he was doing and should be held accountable for it.

jmo

Except they didn't walk free. They were arrested, held accountable, and convicted of the crime. A pardon is not the same as "walking free." It's the president saying "yes, you committed this crime, but you don't deserve to do time for it" and most of the time (IMO), that's due to partisanship, especially so in the case of the anti-abortion activists.

MOO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Except they didn't walk free. They were arrested, held accountable, and convicted of the crime. A pardon is not the same as "walking free." It's the president saying "yes, you committed this crime, but you don't deserve to do time for it" and most of the time (IMO), that's due to partisanship, especially so in the case of the anti-abortion activists.

MOO.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree. My interest in this case is seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. Not in any other cases that people want to compare this one to.

jmo

 

[Sundog]

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree. My interest in this case is seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. Not in any other cases that people want to compare this one to.

jmo

Agree, and different administrations handle pardons differently. IIRC, the last administration pardoned criminals on death row, overturned their death penalty sentences to life in prison. Another political pardon. It happens with each president.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

My interest in this case is seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others.

SBMFF.

On that little bit, we can agree, because my interest is also in seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. That was the cause of the protest in the first place. Unfortunately, we'll have to agree to disagree on who the right-violators actually are.

MOO.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Meanwhile, on Wednesday 3/18, the government filed a motion to extend deadlines, including extending discovery by 90 days and setting the speedy trial exclusion period to 90 days from the current 26.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/391/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

That was followed by various defendants' responses that needed to be filed by Friday.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/407/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/406/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

One pleading I liked was this one by a defendant's attorney who laid out how long it should take the government to review documents and that they have plenty of time already.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/409/united-states-v-levy-armstrong

And then the judge gave a ruling on that same Friday. He extended the discovery deadline by 29 days to 4/24/26, and extended the exclusion time another 31 days (total 57 days). That's added to the Speedy Trial Act's 70 days requirement for trial start from date of initial appearance.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/411/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

This paragraph of the order is quite revealing on the weakness and bad faith of the government's case. moo

The Court does not disagree that additional discovery and additional defendants make this case more complex. Indeed, that is why the Court has designated it a complex case for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. However, the Court is troubled by the inference in the government’s most recent motion that it has yet to produce any discovery to Defendants. (See Doc. 391 at 7 (describing steps taken in “preparation of discovery for production” and recounting steps necessary “to produce the discovery in this case in the manner typically done by the USAO in this district”); id. at 8 (discussing steps needed to “expedite the preparation of discovery”). That inference has been confirmed by Defendants’ responses. (See, e.g., Doc. 406 at 3; Doc. 407 at 5.) This is particularly concerning given that the pace and cadence of discovery was an issue before the Court in February, resulting in the Court commenting that “rolling discovery appears consistent with [the Court’s] interpretation of the government’s discovery obligations.” (Doc. 140 at 5.) It seems that comment has been ignored. So, here we are, months into a case that the government had an intense appetite to initiate, but cannot seem to keep up the pace when it comes to discovery obligations. This is unacceptable.

 

[Ontario Mom]

SBMFF.

On that little bit, we can agree, because my interest is also in seeing justice for those who violated the rights of others. That was the cause of the protest in the first place. Unfortunately, we'll have to agree to disagree on who the right-violators actually are.

MOO.

I have no idea what SBMFF means but even if I believed what ICE was doing was wrong (I don't, although it's definitely tragic that people have been killed), as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

Even if I did believe what ICE was doing was wrong (the entire point of the protest at the church where an ICE agent was a member) I'd still condemn the actions of Lemon and his associates. If they wanted to make a point, they should have never gone inside the church and disrupted the service. They could have made their point from outside the building, just fine.

They made the wrong choice.

jmo

 

[musicaljoke]

I have no idea what SBMFF means but even if I believed what ICE was doing was wrong (I don't, although it's definitely tragic that people have been killed), as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

Even if I did believe what ICE was doing was wrong (the entire point of the protest at the church where an ICE agent was a member) I'd still condemn the actions of Lemon and his associates. If they wanted to make a point, they should have never gone inside the church and disrupted the service. They could have made their point from outside the building, just fine.

They made the wrong choice.

jmo

Snipped by me for focus .. SBMFF.

 

[witchway]

I have no idea what SBMFF means but even if I believed what ICE was doing was wrong (I don't, although it's definitely tragic that people have been killed), as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

Even if I did believe what ICE was doing was wrong (the entire point of the protest at the church where an ICE agent was a member) I'd still condemn the actions of Lemon and his associates. If they wanted to make a point, they should have never gone inside the church and disrupted the service. They could have made their point from outside the building, just fine.

They made the wrong choice.

jmo

ICE agents shot and killed 2 innocent people in cold blood in broad daylight. They have never yet been charged to this day. The Director of ICE is a pastor of that church not just an attendee. Facts

Don Lemon and Georgia Forte were reporting on the protest. Which because of those efforts it got national attention or even global thankfully. jmo

Why didn’t the church condemn the actions of the ice agents? Not very christian imo

 

[Ruminations]

The Face Act that demonizes DL and these defendants was also violated by groups that protested abortion. They were later pardoned by the president, who also made clear that future prosecutions would only happen in "extraordinary circumstances." Same law. One group was pardoned and protections put in place for future arrests; another group villianized.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

MOO.

Exactly.

This was a law conceived because there were protesters physically blocking access to clinics where health services including abortions were given. When the law was proposed, the right said, "But surely it's our right to protest abortions," and legislators on all asides agreed. The law had to be designed to allow protest AND access to clinics. The right was bummed, being that some people actually did want to avoid criminalizing preventing access to clinics, so they tried to kill the bill with an additional protection they weirdly imagined the left would be against: they started with churches. Soon, the bill, with protections for clinics and protesters and houses of worship was ultimately passed, to the chagrin of people who still wanted to block access to clinics.

Then, people got into serious legal trouble blocking access to clinics.

Then, in the spirit of project 2025, and since the act couldn't be overturned, this administration started to gut it in part by pardoning people who were convicted. Those pardons weaken the law and chill prosecution of it because one solid defense is, "Hey, someone who did worse was pardoned."

So, for the very same administration that threw out pardons and complained about the law to try to use it for a prosecution is rather feckless. They pulled out the teeth, and are now trying to use it to bite.

MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

View attachment 653975

Charges Dropped Against Woman Mistaken for Protester in Minnesota Church Case

Federal prosecutors dismissed charges against one of 39 defendants they charged for disrupting a worship service in January to protest the immigration crackdown.

www.nytimes.com

From the article:

Mr. Hunter said his client’s ordeal began the morning of Feb. 27 when federal agents pulled her over as she was driving and informed her they had a warrant for her arrest. Ms. Lewis, an engineer who said through her lawyer that she has not participated in activism, was dumbfounded, he said. Investigators took her to a federal building and interrogated her for hours as she sought to persuade them they had made a mistake, he said.
....
Mr. Hunter said he believes his client became a suspect after investigators obtained a search warrant for data from cellphone towers in an effort to identify individuals who were at a parking lot where the church protesters gathered before the demonstration. Ms. Lewis, he said, had been at the parking lot that morning to pick up items she had won at an auction.

Investigators obtained a driver’s license photo of Ms. Lewis and compared it against footage shot during the protest. One woman in the footage bore a strong resemblance, Mr. Hunter said.

Mr. Hunter said the government could have avoided the blunder if it had sent Ms. Lewis a letter informing her that she was under criminal investigation. That routine step in federal cases can clear up misconceptions before charges are filed or pave the way for plea deals early on.

So they did an indiscriminate cellphone tower search for anyone in that area, such overkill for a nonviolent incident. They pull out all the stops to run up the arrest numbers, recklessly, but then, as seen in the judge's order above, they slow walk their case to court. Malicious prosecution imho.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I have no idea what SBMFF means but even if I believed what ICE was doing was wrong (I don't, although it's definitely tragic that people have been killed), as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

Even if I did believe what ICE was doing was wrong (the entire point of the protest at the church where an ICE agent was a member) I'd still condemn the actions of Lemon and his associates. If they wanted to make a point, they should have never gone inside the church and disrupted the service. They could have made their point from outside the building, just fine.

They made the wrong choice.

jmo

And that's the point of contention. I thank God every single day that we have journalists willing to do the thankless job of reporting on what's happening in this crazy world, including reporting on corruption, lawfare, and illegal activity. I look forward to DL being vindicated in this case. Charge him with trespassing, that's fine. But these charges do not reflect what took place and are just a sloppy excuse for the feds to flex their muscles to try to intimidate others. The DOJ has become a caricature of itself and fortunately, the courts are seeing through it with one blistering ruling after another.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Theres no reasonfor federal charges to apply, let alone allowing military justices to preside over these cases.

The cases should be tried in the usual jurisdictions - at the state and local level. JMO.

I didn't understand what you meant (state vs federal) initially, but I think I now understand after reading this very long Lawfare article.

Federal prosecution under the FACE Act seems to rely on the interstate commerce laws ... abortion clinics participate in interstate commerce because they sometimes/often service clients who live in other states, and those people pay for their procedures.

Simplistically, attending a church service does not involve interstate commerce. A protest at a church should not be deemed a federal matter.

It is spoken of under the section titled The Commerce Clause in the article (for easier finding for those who are interested to read it).

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

 

[Ruminations]

I didn't understand what you meant (state vs federal) initially, but I think I now understand after reading this very long Lawfare article.

Federal prosecution under the FACE Act seems to rely on the interstate commerce laws ... abortion clinics participate in interstate commerce because they sometimes/often service clients who live in other states, and those people pay for their procedures.

Simplistically, attending a church service does not involve interstate commerce. A protest at a church should not be deemed a federal matter.

It is spoken of under the section titled The Commerce Clause in the article (for easier finding for those who are interested to read it).

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

When the FACE act was being legislated, it was very much about the protection of clinics.

FACE: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances.


I think the federal part was because the federal government allowed states to make laws restricting some abortions in some cases, but made it a federally protected right for women to access abortions in most cases. So the federal government had an interest in enforcing that states allowed this access.

If a state or locality was unable to restrict every abortion with a law, they could compensate by allowing mobs physically prevent abortions from happening. Indeed this seemed to occur in some locations, with the added danger of preventing women from getting ANY of the care they needed at clinics, such as cancer screenings. The federal government needed a law to allow them to intervene if localities attempted mob rule. And that is why the FACE act was born.

MOO

 

[Betty P]

I didn't understand what you meant (state vs federal) initially, but I think I now understand after reading this very long Lawfare article.

Federal prosecution under the FACE Act seems to rely on the interstate commerce laws ... abortion clinics participate in interstate commerce because they sometimes/often service clients who live in other states, and those people pay for their procedures.

Simplistically, attending a church service does not involve interstate commerce. A protest at a church should not be deemed a federal matter.

It is spoken of under the section titled The Commerce Clause in the article (for easier finding for those who are interested to read it).

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

Yes. Disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct are matters for local law and courts. That's probably the only charge that might apply in this situation.

The only way the Trump administration could try to intervene for publicity and political intimidation was if they twisted an existing federal law to make it seem it applied. As you pointed out, it doesn't. That's probably what the court will decide, if it ever gets that far.

The Trump DOJ used the same tactic in Minnesota when it came to prosecuting Vance Boelter for the shooting of State House Speaker. Melissa Hortman and her husband and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/us/vance-boelter-minnesota-lawmakers-shot

Federal grand jury indicts man accused of killing former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman

A federal grand jury has indicted the man accused of fatally shooting a prominent Minnesota state representative and her husband and seriously wounding a state senator and his wife.

apnews.com

Most murders such as this one are state crimes, prosecuted in state courts. Instead, the DOJ jumped into the case and immediately filed federal murder charges. Totally unnecessary, but here we are with a case that has been buried by the news media and getting far less coverage than protestors in a church.

The DOJ has no business usurping Minnesota's right to try its own cases.