Church Protest Chaos Sparks Federal Conspiracy Case

A federal courtroom fight over a disrupted church service is now testing whether “journalism” can be used as a shield when activists target worship.

Quick Take

Don Lemon pleaded not guilty in federal court to charges tied to a January protest that interrupted a Cities Church service in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Prosecutors allege a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and a violation of the FACE Act, a law more commonly associated with abortion-clinic access but also covering religious exercise.
The incident occurred amid President Trump’s stepped-up immigration enforcement, which has triggered organized anti-ICE demonstrations in Democratic-led cities.
The case raises a narrow but important question: where the line sits between reporting a protest and participating in coordinated disruption.

What happened inside the St. Paul church

Protesters interrupted a January 18, 2026 worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul after identifying a pastor, David Easterwood, as the acting director of the St. Paul ICE field office. Reports describe chanting inside the service and a demand that the church and its leaders answer for immigration enforcement during President Trump’s crackdown. Don Lemon livestreamed from the scene and interviewed activists, congregants, and church leadership as the disruption unfolded.

Church leaders and attorneys arguing on the church’s behalf describe the event as coordinated, not spontaneous, and dispute the idea that press credentials provide immunity if someone is embedded in a planned action. From a constitutional perspective, worship is not a public free-for-all; churches retain rights to conduct services without interference. That principle matters even when the target is unpopular, because the protection is for the venue and the congregants—not for the message of the disruptors.

The charges and why the FACE Act is central

Federal prosecutors charged Lemon and others with conspiring to deprive civil rights and with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The FACE Act was enacted in 1994 and prohibits force, threats of force, or physical obstruction aimed at interfering with protected activities, including religious exercise. First-time offenders can face up to one year in prison under the statute. The unusual feature here is the law’s application to a church disruption tied to immigration politics rather than clinic protests.

All defendants named in the reporting, including Lemon and activist organizer Nekima Levy Armstrong, pleaded not guilty at their February 13 arraignment in U.S. District Court in St. Paul before Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko. Supporters rallied outside the courthouse with signs and chants demanding the charges be dropped and framing the case as a free-speech issue. Lemon has said he was there to report and that he will fight what he calls baseless charges.

How the warrant dispute and arrests changed the stakes

The case also includes a procedural wrinkle that escalated tensions around federal enforcement. Reporting indicates a magistrate judge initially denied arrest warrants, and that denial was later overturned by Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz—an uncommon sequence cited by defense-side voices as evidence of an aggressive posture. Lemon was arrested later in January in Los Angeles by federal agents and then released on a personal recognizance bond, adding national attention to what began as a local church incident.

Religious liberty vs. press claims: the line the court must draw

Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly vowed prosecution for threats against worship rights, and administration officials framed the case as defending people’s ability to attend church without intimidation. Defense attorneys and press-freedom advocates counter that charging a journalist over protest coverage chills newsgathering. The strongest factual question, based on available reporting, is whether Lemon’s presence was purely observational or whether foreknowledge and coordination with organizers moves the conduct closer to participation.

Don Lemon Pleads Not Guilty After Calling Minnesota Church Protest a ‘Clandestine Mission’https://t.co/8ewQc21bIn

— RedState (@RedState) February 14, 2026

The record described in the reporting suggests the court will not be deciding whether immigration enforcement is good policy, but whether a protest that enters and disrupts a worship service crosses a legal boundary—especially when participants later argue that cameras and commentary convert the event into protected reporting. Conservatives who watched institutions tolerate disruption in the name of “activism” will focus on the precedent: if worship can be treated as a stage for political pressure, constitutional protections for free exercise become theoretical.