Don Lemon Now Faces Federal Charges for Storming Church as Minnesota Officials Decline State Prosecution
By David Lindfield
Former CNN host Don Lemon is now facing federal charges stemming from a disruptive protest at a Minnesota church after local officials declined to pursue state criminal charges, citing insufficient evidence.
The controversy centers on an incident at Cities Church in St. Paul, where a group of anti-ICE activists entered a worship service and confronted congregants during a Sunday gathering.
Federal prosecutors have already brought charges against participants involved in the demonstration, but city officials have determined the available evidence does not support state-level criminal prosecution.
The decision has sparked criticism from church leaders and renewed debate over religious liberty, protest rights, and equal enforcement of the law.
Pastor Questions City’s Commitment to Religious Freedom
Cities Church Pastor Ryan Griffith publicly challenged St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her following the city’s decision not to pursue charges.
“Mayor Her, on April 20, in your address on the state of St. Paul, you said that you are committed to listening and to acting and to lifting St. Paul higher to its full potential,” Griffith said.
“But I wonder, do you include Evangelical Christians in the commitment?
“Or do you only care about those you agree with?
“You have left us to wonder this.”
WATCH:
The city of Saint Paul has officially determined the January 18 invasion of our church and the desecration of our worship to be a “peaceful protest.”
— Jonathan Parnell (@jonathanparnell) June 3, 2026
Here’s my question for Mayor Her: pic.twitter.com/DscBzqKCzU
The incident occurred amid heightened tensions surrounding President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, which led to increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
According to reports, a mob of leftists targeted the church over false claims that one of its pastors was serving as director of a local ICE office.
Worship Service Interrupted by Demonstrators
Witnesses described the demonstration as disruptive and intimidating.
Activists reportedly entered the church during worship services, shouted at congregants, confronted families, and disrupted the gathering.
Church leaders said children were frightened during the incident, and parents were temporarily prevented from reaching them.
Lemon was present during the protest and recorded portions of the event.
During a confrontation with church leadership, Pastor Griffith objected to the disruption.
“This is unacceptable,” Griffith told Lemon.
“It’s shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship.”
Lemon, who deceptively identified himself as a “journalist,” responded by invoking First Amendment protections as justification for denying churchgoers their religious freedom rights.
“Listen, there’s a constitution, the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest,” Lemon said.
When Lemon questioned whether church leaders had attempted to engage with the protesters, Griffith reiterated the congregation’s purpose.
“We’re here to worship Jesus because the hope of the world is Jesus Christ,” the pastor responded.
WATCH:
NEW: Don Lemon tries lecturing a pastor on the First Amendment after a mob of far leftists stormed a church in Minneapolis.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 18, 2026
Pastor: “This is unacceptable. It's shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship…”
Lemon: “Listen, there's a constitution, the First… pic.twitter.com/joHdCvaXe6
Federal Charges Move Forward
Despite arguments from Lemon that he was acting in a journalistic capacity, federal prosecutors have proceeded with charges connected to the incident.
Following the incident, it emerged that Lemon had planned the events in advance while presenting himself as an observer.
The reported charges include conspiracy to deprive rights and violations of federal protections governing access to religious facilities.
Supporters of the prosecution argue that the federal government has clear authority to pursue the case regardless of whether local authorities bring charges.
“The City of St. Paul can say whatever they want,” one commentator wrote on social media.
“Their opinion doesn’t negate the Supremacy Clause.
“The DOJ will make that determination.”
City Attorney Defends Decision Not to Prosecute
St. Paul officials maintain that their decision was based strictly on legal standards governing criminal prosecution.
In a statement cited by local media, the city attorney’s office explained:
“Our office has a legal and ethical obligation to file charges only when the available evidence establishes probable cause and supports a reasonable likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Following a careful evaluation of the video footage, investigative reports, and other available materials, prosecutors determined that the current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes.”
The explanation has done little to satisfy critics, who argue that the decision creates a troubling precedent for religious institutions.
Griffith warned that the city’s reasoning could be interpreted as permitting similar disruptions at other houses of worship.
“According to the city attorney’s logic, it is perfectly fine for agitators to invade a mosque, a cathedral, or a temple, shout in people’s faces, terrorize their children, and shut down their religious gathering,” Griffith said.
“Just call it a ‘protest.’”
As federal proceedings continue, the case is likely to remain a flashpoint in the broader debate over religious liberty, protest activity, and the limits of political demonstrations inside houses of worship.
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐