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

[tricia]

I am just numb.
This is a thread about Don Lemon and the arrest. Any broader topic about religion and what group is doing what to whom is just not on topic.
It is an easy concept.
Please...PLEASE????
Thank you.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

At the very LEAST it is trespassing as the church is private property. A case could be made that the disruption did make some of the chruchgoers fearful, especially children. If Lemon entered the church with them, he by association was parrt of the protest. A journalist cannot break the law using "free speech" as an excuse. You lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

He isn't using free speech as an excuse. He never once claimed free speech.

Journalists have always done things that would be seen by lay people as illegal. It's only after the courts specify that it is covered under freedom of the press that we learn it wasn't actually criminal (i.e. The Pentagon Papers).

The protestors were the ones who disrupted the service. DL covered it. I don't believe your flea analogy holds up here. If it did, there would be scores of journalists behind bars.

MOO.

 

[Ruminations]

At the very LEAST it is trespassing as the church is private property. A case could be made that the disruption did make some of the chruchgoers fearful, especially children. If Lemon entered the church with them, he by association was parrt of the protest. A
journalist cannot break the law using "free speech" as an excuse. You lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. With great freedom comes great responsibility.

"Federal Law: The FACE Act prohibits intentional interference, force, or threats against individuals exercising religious freedom, with violations punishable by fines and prison. 18 U.S. Code § 247 also protects against damage to religious property."

Nobody is saying a journalist is allowed to break laws.

What is being said by most professionals, including judges who refused to sign off on his arrest, is he did nothing illegal.

Please name one act he did that is illegal. Bonus points if you can go through the charging document and find that actual behavior on video. The charging documents are embarrassing. They look like they were written by middle schoolers.

MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

DBM

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If Lemon and the protestors had remained OUTSIDE the legal confines of a protected place of worship accoring to US law, they never would have been charged with what they're charged with.

But because they chose not to do that, now there are charges.

And if the DOJ wasn't flexing muscles with inappropriate prosecution in an effort to intimidate journalists, DL and GF wouldn't have been charged. But the DOJ chose to make a mockery of our legal system yet again so here we are. I believe the GJ transcripts will tell us everything we need to know about this case. Waiting...

MOO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Please name one act he did that is illegal. Bonus points if you can go through the charging document and find that actual behavior on video. The charging documents are embarrassing. They look like they were written by middle schoolers.

MOO

You claim the charging docs are "embarassing" and were "written by middle schoolers".

Considering none of the evidence supporting these charges has been made available to the public, can you please cite your sources for the claims you've made, bashing LE agents in this case?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Not really. Entering a church is not a crime. Neither is protesting in a church.

Protesting in a church is not a crime?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Protesting in a church is not a crime?

Sorry, I'm stumped. Why do you think Lemon was charged?

Because he's falsely charged obviously. Do you think everybody who is ever charged is guilty? That's not how it works. You're approaching this backwards. If you claim it's a crime, it's you who should be able to cite the criminal code that says protesting in a church is a crime.

And Lemon didn't even protest, so it's weird to name him instead of a protester.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Because he's falsely charged obviously. Do you think everybody who is ever charged is guilty? That's not how it works. You're approaching this backwards. If you claim it's a crime, it's you who should be able to cite the criminal code that says protesting in a church is a crime.

And Lemon didn't even protest, so it's weird to name him instead of a protester.

The statute is named in the charging docs.
Protesting in a church, depriving others of their right to freely worship is actually, in fact, a federal crime.

I'd highly recommend you read up on it.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The statute is named in the charging docs.
Protesting in a church, depriving others of their right to freely worship is actually, in fact, a federal crime.

I'd highly recommend you read up on it.

Nothing they charged him with says protesting in a church is a crime. Protests can become criminal but they are not automatically a crime in themselves.

You're referencing the Face Act, but if you had read it you would know it requires that someone "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."

And the terms "interfere with," "intimidate" and "physical obstruction" aren't meant by their broad colloquial meanings, they're defined in the Act as:

(2) Interfere with.—The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of
movement.
(3) Intimidate.—The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of
bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4) Physical obstruction.— The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

I haven't seen any evidence that clearly shows protestors did any of that. The embarrassing indictment does try to claim the defendants did those things but the things they allege are just flatly false, like this,

At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy.

The video proves it is laughable to say he obstructed anyone.

There is zero chance Lemon will be convicted of the Face Act, although maybe some protestors could be if there is some evidence the government has that they've been hiding.

The other charge, the KKK Act, requires that someone "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution." The big obstacle with this one will be proving anyone had the specific intent to deprive anyone of their rights let alone conspired with anyone to do so.

This has all been posted here before.

There is another charge, 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) for aiding and abetting, and this has its hurdles as well. I will quote from a Motion to Dismiss filed early in the case by defendant Ian Davis.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/97/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

E. The Indictment Does Not Plead Aiding-and-Abetting Liability Under 18 U.S.C. § 2
Count Two also invokes aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2, but the indictment does not plead facts sufficient to support such a theory. To state aiding-and abetting liability, the indictment must allege that the defendant took an affirmative act to facilitate the commission of the underlying offense and did so with advance knowledge of the offense’s essential elements and the intent to make it succeed. Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 71–77 (2014).

As applied to Mr. Austin, the indictment does not allege that he assisted, encouraged, directed, or coordinated any other person’s use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction. Nor does it allege facts showing that he had advance knowledge that another person would engage in conduct prohibited by the FACE Act. Instead, the indictment relies on collective descriptions of group activity and protest presence.

The indictment pleads effects, but not the mechanics by which Mr. Austin rendered movement impassable or unreasonably difficult, as § 248(e)(5) requires. Such allegations are insufficient. Mere presence at the scene of an offense, expressive alignment with others, or participation in a demonstration does not establish aiding-and-abetting liability absent allegations of affirmative facilitation and shared criminal intent. United States v. Ivey, 915F.2d 380, 384 (8th Cir. 1990)

That Motion has lots of good stuff about other problems with the charges.

The Face Act clause for churches might also even be unconstitutional. That's explained in the below article which goes into other issues as well.

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

moo

 

[sunshineray]

You claim the charging docs are "embarassing" and were "written by middle schoolers".

Considering none of the evidence supporting these charges has been made available to the public, can you please cite your sources for the claims you've made, bashing LE agents in this case?

When I read that post I understood immediately that it was the poster's opinion that the charging docs were embarrassing and read like they were written by middle schoolers. The poster even said "MOO"..."My Own Opinion". I have to say having looked at the charging docs myself, I agree with them on both counts. AJMO

 

[Ruminations]

Nothing they charged him with says protesting in a church is a crime. Protests can become criminal but they are not automatically a crime in themselves.

You're referencing the Face Act, but if you had read it you would know it requires that someone "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."

And the terms "interfere with," "intimidate" and "physical obstruction" aren't meant by their broad colloquial meanings, they're defined in the Act as:

(2) Interfere with.—The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of
movement.
(3) Intimidate.—The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of
bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4) Physical obstruction.— The term “physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

I haven't seen any evidence that clearly shows protestors did any of that. The embarrassing indictment does try to claim the defendants did those things but the things they allege are just flatly false, like this,



The video proves it is laughable to say he obstructed anyone.

There is zero chance Lemon will be convicted of the Face Act, although maybe some protestors could be if there is some evidence the government has that they've been hiding.

The other charge, the KKK Act, requires that someone "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution." The big obstacle with this one will be proving anyone had the specific intent to deprive anyone of their rights let alone conspired with anyone to do so.

This has all been posted here before.

There is another charge, 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) for aiding and abetting, and this has its hurdles as well. I will quote from a Motion to Dismiss filed early in the case by defendant Ian Davis.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/97/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/

That Motion has lots of good stuff about other problems with the charges.

The Face Act clause for churches might also even be unconstitutional. That's explained in the below article which goes into other issues as well.

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

moo

Yes. Yes. Yes. Agree.

The FACE act's origin story is it was legislation to deal with anti-abortion protesters blocking access to health clinics. FACE is an acronym for Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances. There was a great deal of care put into making sure the FACE act would not interfere with anti abortion activists rights to protest legally.

As the law was being developed, it was expanded to not interfering with a right to worship, because protest often is inspired by faith. We see this with anti-abortion protests, and we saw this at Cities Church, where some protesters were devout Christians. The law was carefully developed to make it clear that expressing faith is legal, blocking access clinics is not.

For context, the protest occurred shortly after citizen mother of three Renee Good was murdered for expressing disapproval that a gang of armed ICE thugs were threatening the neighborhood, all to arrest one person, who may or may not have violated any immigration rules, and who got away when the thugs got distracted by people yelling at them. This murdering behavior is both illegal AND against most moral codes. For some of the protesters, it was their Christian faith that prompted them to protest the thuggery and murder by ICE. They chose to do it where an ICE administrator worked.

It is clear the protest was unpleasant to a number of people. It is possible some behaviors by some protesters was illegal. It is rather a stretch to use the FACE act or KKK laws, rather than simple trespassing laws, but...the Federal Government did jump in and use Federal laws, making it now complicated for the locals to take any action with local laws like trespassing.

Why do we have these Federal laws? It never was to jump in ahead of local authorities. It was to give the Federal Government the authority to jump in if local law enforcement would not do so to enforce a Federal law. There were some local police forces or local governments that would fail to take appropriate action, when, for instance, women in a certain neighborhood couldn't even physically get to their clinic door and local LE refused to get involved. The FACE act is only needed when local police don't, for example, insist that protesters stay out of a certain safe zone to allow patients of a clinic access.

In this case, there is no evidence local police were not appropriately protecting worshippers. It just seems like the Federal government saw an opportunity to suppress free speech and journalism and grabbed it, with little respect for the actual law.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

Protesting in a church is not a crime?

Interesting question.

The answer is: It depends on what country the church is in.

If the church is in an authoritarian county, the protest is illegal. If the protest is in a democratic country, the protest is legal.

So, I'm a US citizen, and like to think my country is still democratic. I know looking at the USA from the outside, not everyone agrees.

This very case could answer the question: Is the USA a democracy, and protesting in churches is legal, or is it authoritarian, and protesting in churches is illegal?

MOO