A federal appeals court has turned down the Justice Department’s urgent plea to arrest former CNN anchor Don Lemon and four others linked to a disruptive protest at a St. Paul church.
Last weekend, protesters barged into Cites Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, disrupting a Sunday service to oppose the Trump administration’s deportation policies. A federal magistrate judge, Douglas Micko, declined to issue arrest warrants for five individuals, including Lemon and one of his producers, citing insufficient evidence.
The DOJ escalated the matter to Minnesota’s chief district judge, Patrick Schiltz, and then to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which late Friday rejected the government’s request through a three-judge panel.
The issue has sparked heated debate over the balance between free speech, public safety, and the role of journalists in contentious protests. While the right to protest is fundamental, many question whether disrupting sacred spaces like a church crosses a line. Let’s unpack this saga with an eye on principle over pandemonium.
The incident at Cites Church wasn’t just a momentary disruption; it was a calculated stand against federal immigration enforcement. Prosecutors claimed Lemon and his producer had prior knowledge of the protest and were present as events unfolded, yet Magistrate Judge Micko found no grounds for their arrest. Meanwhile, three other individuals, described as leaders of the intrusion, were briefly taken into custody and released, Politico reports.
The DOJ didn’t stop there, pushing hard to overturn Micko’s ruling through what Chief Judge Schiltz called an unprecedented maneuver. Schiltz himself was interrupted at home while caring for his disabled son, only to dismiss the urgency of the government’s demand. This kind of overreach raises eyebrows—why the rush when no violence was alleged?
“There is absolutely no emergency,” Schiltz declared, cutting through the DOJ’s insistence on immediate action. If the government truly believed in its case, couldn’t it wait for a grand jury, scheduled for Jan. 27, or refine its evidence as Schiltz suggested? This feels less like justice and more like a power play.
Schiltz didn’t mince words, noting the government’s approach was “unheard of in our district” and likely across the broader Eighth Circuit. He pointed out standard options—revise the affidavit or seek an indictment—were available, yet ignored. This isn’t how a confident prosecution operates; it’s how a desperate one flails.
Adding fuel to the fire, Schiltz highlighted that the five targeted individuals, including Lemon, weren’t accused of violence—merely entering the church and, at worst, shouting offensive remarks. If that’s the bar for emergency arrests, what’s next—locking up everyone who raises their voice at a town hall? The slope looks slippery.
Schiltz also took issue with the DOJ lumping all eight involved together, ignoring key distinctions. Two weren’t even protesters but a journalist and his producer, with no evidence of wrongdoing. This scattershot approach reeks of agenda-driven prosecution, not precision.
The 8th Circuit’s ruling late Friday, involving Judges Jane Kelly, Steven Grasz, and Jonathan Kobes, put a firm stop to the DOJ’s bid. While Grasz concurred there might be probable cause, he agreed no urgent intervention was needed. The government’s failure to prove it had no other recourse sealed its defeat.
Amid this legal tussle, Minnesota’s federal judiciary is grappling with broader chaos—massive law enforcement surges, widespread protests, and thousands of immigrant detentions. Schiltz’s messages to the appeals court painted a grim picture of overwhelmed courts and questionable ICE detentions, with judges ordering releases or bond hearings. This context makes the DOJ’s focus on a church protest seem oddly misplaced.
Let’s talk immigration enforcement for a moment—policies must be firm to maintain order, but they shouldn’t trample due process or target bystanders like journalists. The surge in detentions and public unrest in Minnesota shows a system stretched thin, yet the DOJ’s obsession with Lemon feels like a distraction from bigger failures. Where’s the focus on fixing the root issues?
Protests, even disruptive ones, are a cornerstone of American freedom, but they must respect boundaries—churches aren’t debate halls. Still, the government’s heavy-handed response risks chilling dissent and dragging journalists into the crossfire. Lemon’s presence at the scene shouldn’t equate to guilt by association.
The Trump administration’s deportation operations are a lightning rod, and understandably so—communities feel under siege. Yet, if the response is to disrupt worship or target reporters, it alienates more than it persuades. Both sides need to dial back the theatrics and focus on policy solutions.
As this unfolds, with law enforcement bracing for fallout from another fatal shooting by federal agents in Minnesota on Saturday, the tension isn’t easing. The visit of Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minneapolis only heightens the stakes. One hopes cooler heads prevail before more lines are crossed.
