Don Lemon, local journalists seek dismissal in St. Paul protest case

Five journalists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon and three Twin Cities reporters, asked a federal judge in Minnesota to throw out criminal charges tied to their coverage of an anti-ICE protest at a St. Paul church, arguing the case criminalizes newsgathering protected by the First Amendment.^[1]

The defense motions, filed in the sprawling 39-defendant case over a January disruption of a service at Cities Church, contend the indictment never explains how Lemon violated the Ku Klux Klan Act and say prosecutors are punishing him for planning and reporting on a story. Prosecutors counter that Lemon and the other journalists had advance knowledge of the protest, coordinated in secret, and therefore acted as participants rather than independent observers.^[1]

The federal charges stem from a protest earlier this year at Cities Church in St. Paul, where demonstrators disrupted worship to call out Pastor David Easterwood, who also serves as director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's St. Paul field office.^[1] Prosecutors brought counts under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which is usually used in abortion-clinic obstruction cases, and under the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act, accusing 39 defendants, including Lemon and local journalists Michael Beute, Jerome Richardson, Georgia Fort and Shane Bollman, of conspiring to intimidate worshippers and interfere with Easterwood's federal duties.^[1]

In asking for dismissal, Lemon's legal team frames the indictment as an unprecedented reach that blurs the line between covering a protest and organizing one, a distinction press-freedom advocates say is crucial for reporters who often negotiate access, keep sources confidential, and arrive with foreknowledge of civil disobedience plans. They argue that if planning coverage and agreeing to keep sources anonymous can be recast as evidence of conspiracy, reporters could face felony exposure whenever they embed with activists or document disruptive protests, particularly around polarizing issues like immigration enforcement. Prosecutors, by contrast, maintain that the journalists' alleged secrecy and coordination show they were part of the operation, not neutral observers, and insist the case is about conduct at a worship service, not about punishing a viewpoint.^[1]

The clash lands in a media environment that has long wrestled with how to cover crime, protest, and law enforcement without inflaming prejudice or chilling dissent, including earlier newsroom debates over whether to publish racial breakdowns in crime stories that might reinforce stereotypes. Advocates of tighter press protections argue that, just as editors moved away from raw demographic crime tables toward more context-rich reporting, courts should recognize that aggressive protest coverage often requires some prior coordination and can look messy on paper without being criminal. Others note that prosecutors are leaning on broad civil-rights-era and clinic-access laws in politically charged contexts ranging from abortion to immigration, raising the stakes of how courts draw the line between conspiracy and constitutionally protected reporting.

1. FOX 9