Federal agents marched in. Cameras rolled. And now a former CNN anchor, independent journalists, activists, and a Minnesota church are at the heart of a growing legal and constitutional showdown.
What began on January 18 as a protest inside Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota — sparked by anger over U.S. immigration policy and the presence of an ICE official alleged to be connected with the church’s leadership — has escalated into federal indictments, hot‑button debates over free speech, and national scrutiny of how protests intersect with religious freedom.
Federal prosecutors have characterized the incident as more than a spontaneous rally — alleging that protesters disrupted a Sunday worship service, blocked congregants, and created an environment that intimidated those trying to worship. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice has charged nine individuals under federal civil‑rights statutes including the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and conspiracy to deprive rights. The FACE Act, originally enacted to protect access to clinics and places of worship from obstruction or intimidation, forms the legal backbone of the government’s case.
Among those indicted is Don Lemon, the veteran journalist and former CNN anchor who was at the church on the day of the protest and livestreamed events as they unfolded. The government alleges that Lemon’s presence wasn’t merely journalistic but tied to coordination with activist leaders. Lemon and his attorneys reject that characterization, saying he was there in a reporting capacity and should be protected by the First Amendment’s press freedoms.
Two additional individuals — Ian Davis Austin, a former Army Ranger from Montgomery County, and Jerome Deangelo Richardson — were arrested as part of the expanding case, bringing the total to nine indicted defendants. Prosecutors allege their actions included vocal disruption and participation in the protest inside the church.
The legal battle has already seen early twists. A federal magistrate judge initially refused to authorize arrest warrants for several defendants — including Lemon — due to a lack of probable cause, but a grand jury later returned indictments. Some legal observers note that this shift illustrates how federal prosecutors can pursue charges even when lower‑court judges question the sufficiency of evidence.
Lemon has pushed back forcefully. Appearing on national television, he described his arrest in Los Angeles — where federal agents detained him at a hotel — as politically motivated and aimed at intimidating journalists covering contentious national issues. He maintains his intent was not to incite violence or impede worship but to document and report on the protest.
The dispute has ignited a broader debate:
-
Supporters of the charges — including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who announced the most recent arrests — say federal enforcement is necessary to protect the constitutional right to religious worship and to deter coordinated disruptions inside sacred spaces.
-
Critics argue the government is stretching laws like the FACE Act to chill protest and journalism, turning statutes designed to protect free exercise into tools for broad criminal prosecution. Press freedom advocates warn that prosecuting journalists for being present at politically charged events threatens core First Amendment values.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Minnesota over immigration enforcement, protests, and clashes with federal authorities — including other demonstrations and controversies that have drawn national attention.
Legal experts say a jury may ultimately have to decide key questions: Where does protected protest end and unlawful interference begin? And how should the law treat journalists who document controversial or disruptive events? With court proceedings ongoing, the answers will likely shape how activism, faith communities, and the press interact in the charged political climate of 2026.