Don Lemon Caught in Church Protest

A Minnesota church service disrupted by anti-ICE activists has become a national test of whether the government can protect worship without trampling the First Amendment.

Story Snapshot

A federal judge ordered the release of independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort after their arrests tied to an anti-ICE protest inside Cities Church in St. Paul.
Federal prosecutors allege the protest physically obstructed congregants and violated federal protections for religious exercise, including the FACE Act as applied to places of worship.
Defense attorneys argue Lemon and Fort were newsgathering, not conspiring, raising concerns about chilling effects on press coverage of protests.
The case spotlights a constitutional balancing act: religious liberty and public order versus free press and free speech.

What happened at Cities Church—and why it turned into a federal case

Protesters entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, during a January 18, 2026 service and disrupted worship as congregants tried to proceed. Reports describe demonstrators occupying aisles, chanting slogans, and creating a tense scene aimed at a pastor who also serves as acting field director of the local ICE office. The Department of Justice later indicted nine people in total, alleging a conspiracy to interfere with worshippers’ rights and access to religious exercise.

Federal authorities say the legal hook is the FACE Act, a law widely associated with protecting access to abortion clinics but also used to address interference with religious worship. In this situation, prosecutors argue the conduct crossed from protest into obstruction and intimidation. For conservatives who have watched institutions cave to activist disruption for years, the key question is simple: can Americans attend church without being targeted for someone else’s political agenda?

Why two journalists were arrested—and why a judge ordered them released

Independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were swept into the case after covering the protest. Lemon, a former CNN host now working independently, was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles on January 30 while he was in town covering the Grammys; Fort was arrested in Minnesota the same day. Both faced federal charges tied to the alleged conspiracy and interference with religious freedom, even as their attorneys argued they were documenting events, not directing them.

A federal judge ordered their release on January 30, citing the non-violent nature of the accusations and emphasizing First Amendment protections as the case proceeds. Lemon was released on personal recognizance and publicly said he would continue his work. The judge’s decision did not resolve guilt or innocence; it addressed pretrial detention. Still, the release underscores how carefully courts must treat press-related cases, even when the underlying event involves unlawful conduct.

Pam Bondi’s DOJ message: protect places of worship, even in politically charged cases

Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly confirmed the arrests happened “at my direction,” framing the crackdown as a response to “attacks on places of worship.” That messaging matches a broader Trump-era emphasis on restoring order and defending public institutions that activists increasingly treat as fair game—churches included. From a constitutional perspective, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting religious exercise from disruption, intimidation, and physical obstruction in the middle of a service.

At the same time, DOJ filings and public reporting indicate prosecutors are taking the position that there is no blanket “journalist exception” to the relevant federal statutes when a reporter is alleged to have crossed into participation. That is a critical distinction. The case is not a generalized debate about whether journalism is protected; it is a narrower question of whether these defendants were merely observing or whether their actions contributed to obstructing worshippers.

The core tension: press freedom doesn’t include a license to obstruct, but enforcement must be precise

The reporting highlights competing narratives that will likely define the courtroom battle. Defense attorneys describe the prosecutions as unconstitutional attempts to chill speech and intimidate journalists. Prosecutors point to evidence cited in the indictment, including claims that conduct inside the church physically impeded congregants. A legal expert quoted in coverage described journalist arrests in this context as a rarely crossed “red line,” suggesting even veteran prosecutors usually avoid steps that look like punishing newsgathering.

Judge orders release of journalist and others arrested after ICE church protest https://t.co/AvjRViR5XV

— #TuckFrump (@realTuckFrumper) January 31, 2026

For the public, the practical takeaway is that two rights can be true at once: Americans have strong First Amendment protections to report and protest, and Americans also have the right to worship without being surrounded, blocked, or intimidated. Courts will have to sort out where the facts land for each defendant. With limited public detail on the full evidence set so far, the most responsible conclusion is that the case will hinge on specific actions, not headlines.