Photo by Kindel Media
The federal case stemming from a protest inside a St. Paul, Minnesota, church has grown again. In late March 2026, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that two more people had been arrested in connection with the disruption at Cities Church, bringing the total number of defendants past thirty. Among those already charged: former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who prosecutors say crossed the line from journalist to participant.
The expanding prosecution has become a flashpoint in overlapping national debates over immigration enforcement, religious liberty and the boundaries of press freedom. At its core is a question with no easy answer: When does covering a protest become part of the protest itself?
The Protest at Cities Church
The incident took place during a Sunday worship service at Cities Church, a nondenominational Christian congregation in St. Paul. According to the federal indictment, a group of approximately 40 people entered the sanctuary, moved toward the pulpit and blocked aisles while the service was underway. Participants carried signs and chanted messages opposing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minnesota.
Prosecutors charged the defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a federal civil rights statute that criminalizes conspiracy to interfere with constitutionally protected rights. The government’s theory: the protesters did not merely trespass but deliberately prevented congregants from exercising their First Amendment right to worship free from intimidation and physical obstruction.
Cities Church has not issued detailed public statements about the case, though its leadership cooperated with federal investigators, according to court filings.
How Don Lemon Was Charged
Don Lemon arrived at Cities Church with a camera crew and began livestreaming the protest to his online audience. That much is undisputed. What prosecutors and Lemon’s defense team disagree about is what he did once inside.
The indictment alleges Lemon coordinated with protest organizers before the event and used his livestream not to document the disruption but to amplify its message, effectively functioning as a participant in the conspiracy. Prosecutors point to statements Lemon allegedly made on the stream indicating he was there to support the action, not merely observe it.
Lemon has pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Minnesota. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, has called the charges “a direct assault on the First Amendment” and argued that livestreaming a newsworthy event is protected journalism, not criminal conduct. Lowell has signaled the defense will challenge the government’s characterization of Lemon’s role at every stage of the proceedings.
The case against Lemon has drawn sharp criticism from press freedom organizations. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has warned that prosecuting a journalist for covering a protest, even a disruptive one, sets a dangerous precedent that could chill newsgathering nationwide. PEN America and the Committee to Protect Journalists have echoed those concerns.
The Two New Arrests
Bondi’s March 2026 announcement identified two additional defendants taken into custody, though the Justice Department did not immediately release their names or specify where the arrests took place. A DOJ statement said both individuals are accused of participating in the coordinated entry into the sanctuary and contributing to the obstruction of the worship service.
The new arrests follow earlier charges against several prominent Minnesota activists, including civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong and community organizer Chauntyll Allen, both well known in the Twin Cities for their work on policing and immigration issues. Independent journalist Georgia Fort was also arrested after filming inside the church alongside Lemon.
The Government’s Strategy
Federal prosecutors have portrayed the church protest as a carefully planned operation, not a spontaneous act of civil disobedience. Court filings describe assigned roles: some participants entered the sanctuary, others remained outside to manage logistics, and media figures like Lemon and Fort were allegedly brought in to broadcast the action to a national audience.
That framing is central to the conspiracy charges. By arguing the protest was coordinated at every level, prosecutors can sweep in people who never blocked an aisle or shouted down a pastor. If the government’s theory holds, anyone who knowingly played a role in the plan, including those behind cameras, could face conviction under the same statute.
Defendants face up to 10 years in federal prison if convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 241, though sentences in similar cases have historically been far shorter. Legal analysts say the severity of the charges appears designed to send a deterrent message as immigration protests intensify across the country.
What’s at Stake
The Minnesota church case sits at the intersection of several legal and political fault lines. For the Justice Department, it is a test of whether civil rights statutes originally designed to protect vulnerable communities can be turned outward to shield religious congregations from protest disruptions. For defendants and their supporters, it is an example of prosecutorial overreach, using a federal conspiracy charge to punish what amounts to loud, unwelcome speech in a semi-public space.
For journalists, the stakes may be highest of all. If Lemon is convicted for livestreaming a protest he allegedly helped promote, the precedent could reshape how reporters interact with sources, cover demonstrations and use social media in real time. Defense attorneys and First Amendment scholars have argued that the line between “amplifying” and “reporting” is one the government should not be drawing.
The case is expected to move toward trial later in 2026. Pretrial motions, including challenges to the conspiracy charges on First Amendment grounds, are anticipated in the coming weeks.
About the Author
