A federal appeals court has turned down the Trump administration's urgent push to arrest former CNN anchor Don Lemon and four others, following a lower court judge's refusal to approve the warrants over the weekend.
The decision came from a three-judge panel in the Eighth Circuit, including Obama appointee Jane Kelly and Trump appointees Steven Graz and Jonathan Kobes, regarding a demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18. The unanimous ruling, issued Friday and unsealed Saturday, prompted the Department of Justice to signal by Monday afternoon that it would no longer pursue Lemon’s arrest.
The move has ignited sharp debate over the balance between law enforcement urgency and judicial process. Critics of the administration argue this push sidesteps standard legal pathways, raising questions about overreach in a case tied to a church demonstration.
While the appeals court denied the arrest request, Judge Graz noted in a concurring statement that prosecutors had "clearly established probable cause" for the warrants, though the government failed to prove no other means of relief were available, as reported by the New York Post. This admission of probable cause suggests the case against Lemon and others isn’t baseless, even if the emergency action was deemed unjustified.
Initially, the DOJ sought charges against eight individuals tied to the demonstration, but Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko approved charges for only three, directing the feds to seek a grand jury indictment for the rest. Instead, prosecutors pressed Minnesota Chief US District Judge Patrick Schiltz for a swift review, a move that sparked significant backlash.
Schiltz himself called the request "unheard of" in a letter to Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, pointing out that no judge in the district, even those with over 40 years of experience, could recall such a demand to override a magistrate’s denial of an arrest warrant. The frustration in his tone was palpable, and for good reason: why bypass a grand jury or revised affidavit when those options remain open?
Judge Schiltz didn’t hold back in criticizing the DOJ’s claim of urgency, sarcastically noting their argument that arresting five more people, including a journalist like Lemon, would deter "copycat" church disruptions while the leaders’ arrests apparently wouldn’t. If the goal is public safety, why not focus on protecting the church directly with the thousands of law enforcement officers already in town?
In a separate message to court clerk Susan Bindler, Schiltz further dismantled the government’s logic, stating, "The government does not explain why the arrests of five more people … would make Cities Church any safer." His point cuts deep: fixating on additional arrests seems more about flexing muscle than solving a problem.
The three already arrested—Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—face charges of conspiracy against rights for interfering with worship freedoms. That’s a serious accusation, but the insistence on rounding up more suspects, especially without clear evidence of violence, feels like a stretch to many observers.
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon hinted on "The Megyn Kelly Show" that the DOJ might leverage the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a 1994 law protecting religious worship, to pursue charges against Lemon and others. This raises eyebrows, as applying a law often tied to clinic protests to a church demonstration could set a precedent worth watching. Does this signal a broader strategy to clamp down on dissent under existing statutes?
The DOJ’s initial push for arrests stemmed from allegations that the five, including Lemon, entered Cities Church and disrupted services, with the worst behavior cited as yelling offensive remarks at congregants. No violence was reported, which undercuts the narrative of an urgent threat requiring extraordinary judicial action.
Ultimately, the DOJ withdrew its request for Schiltz to consider the warrants on Monday, leaving the matter unresolved for now. A docket entry confirmed Schiltz would take no further action on the application, signaling at least a temporary retreat by prosecutors.
This case isn’t just about a single demonstration; it’s a flashpoint for deeper tensions over free expression and the right to worship without interference. When does a protest cross into disruption severe enough to justify arrests, especially of figures like Lemon, whose role as a journalist adds another layer of complexity?
The incident at Cities Church feels like another example of sacred spaces being trampled under the guise of activism. Yet, even in disagreement, the heavy-handed response from the DOJ risks alienating those who value both law and liberty, a misstep in a nation already on edge.
As this unfolds, the question lingers: will the government refocus on grand jury proceedings, or has this public stumble cooled their pursuit? One thing is certain: the clash between judicial restraint and executive urgency has rarely looked so stark, and Cities Church remains a symbol of that divide.