DOJ Targets Don Lemon Over Church Protest Disruption, Despite Judge’s Block
The situation involving former CNN anchor Don Lemon escalates as the U.S. Department of Justice sets its sights on him for his role in a disruptive protest at a St. Paul church. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon confirmed on Friday that the DOJ is actively seeking criminal charges against Lemon, asserting that his actions during a recent protest could violate federal law protecting religious freedoms.
Dhillon’s statement underscores the DOJ’s determination to hold Lemon accountable. “When I first saw the video that Don Lemon himself put out about his conduct that day, it was clear to me we had the predicates for pursuing FACE Act and conspiracy charges,” she stated. This indicates that federal authorities believe they have substantial evidence based on Lemon’s own recordings of the protest.
The protest erupted during a typical Sunday service at Cities Church, where anti-ICE demonstrators confronted a pastor linked to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Tensions ran high after the recent fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen during an ICE operation. Critics of Lemon argue that by livestreaming the event, he did more than document the disruption; they claim he amplified it, which could jeopardize his work as a journalist.
The DOJ argues that Lemon’s involvement goes beyond traditional journalism into the realm of active participation, as his livestreamed footage reportedly includes moments where he cheers on protesters. Dhillon stated that these actions serve as “admissions against interest,” suggesting Lemon’s role was not merely observational.
However, Lemon’s legal team refutes these claims, asserting that their client was simply doing his job as a journalist. Attorney Abbe Lowell emphasized, “It was no different than what he has done for more than 30 years—reporting and covering newsworthy events.” This assertion brings to light an ongoing debate about what constitutes protected journalistic activity in politically charged settings.
The legal landscape became even more complex when a federal magistrate judge blocked the indictment against Lemon, citing insufficient probable cause. Judge Douglas Micko’s decision to refuse signing the arrest warrant raises eyebrows, especially given his connection to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who has criticized the application of the FACE Act in this instance.
Ellison remarked that the DOJ’s interpretation of the FACE Act is an overreach. “How they are stretching these laws to people protesting in a church is beyond me,” he stated, framing the issue within a larger discussion about the intended protections of the law, primarily designed to safeguard access to reproductive rights. This pushback illustrates the tension between federal and state interpretations of legal frameworks surrounding protests and religious liberties.
The DOJ maintains its stance, emphatically stating that “A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest.” Dhillon insists that rights are not absolute and that disruptive activities during worship services cannot be defended under the First Amendment. Such remarks reflect the DOJ’s commitment to pursuing Lemon and others involved in the protest.
The prosecution’s momentum has implications that extend beyond Lemon. Multiple protest organizers face legal scrutiny, and the DOJ’s strategy signals a robust response to actions that violate the sanctity of religious spaces. Attorney General Pam Bondi reinforced this position with a clear declaration: “Nobody is above the law.” This determination to safeguard places of worship underscores the federal government’s initiative to tackle disruptions by protesters.
In the backdrop of all this, Lemon portrays himself as a victim of political motives. “Whatever they do, let them do it… people are fed up… That’s why those protesters went into the church,” he told podcaster Jennifer Welch. This narrative positions him within a broader discussion of press freedom versus accountability, questioning how far journalists can go in their reporting before crossing legal lines.
The implications of this case extend into the larger arena of journalistic integrity, with potential outcomes possibly reshaping the legal boundaries of press freedoms in similar situations. A scenario is developing where federal authorities are weighing grand jury charges or appealing the judge’s decision, suggesting that this saga is far from over.
As the situation persists, public scrutiny intensifies around Lemon’s actions, and the discussion shifts towards the intersections of law, freedom of speech, and the responsibilities of journalists. President Trump weighed in, calling Lemon’s behavior “disgraceful,” reflecting a broader sentiment among critics who believe that Lemon abused his role as a journalist to incite chaos.
Looking ahead, it’s clear federal authorities have no intent of pulling back their prosecutorial efforts. “We’re going to pursue this to the ends of the Earth,” Dhillon asserted, communicating a fierce commitment to pursuing accountability for those involved in the disruption. This case encapsulates a fight over Lemon’s professional conduct and resonates with the ongoing debate about protest rights, religious liberties, and the scope of journalistic protections amid societal tensions.
As developments unfold, the legal ramifications could set significant precedents that affect how journalists operate during contentious events in the future. The stakes are high, with the potential for reshaping the boundaries between reporting and activism in an increasingly polarized America.
"*" indicates required fields
