Appeals Court Denies DOJ’s Arrest Demands

Federal judges delivered a stunning rebuke to the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, blocking an unprecedented attempt to arrest journalist Don Lemon over his participation in an anti-ICE church protest that involved no violence whatsoever.

Story Snapshot

8th Circuit appeals court denied DOJ’s emergency request to force arrest warrants for Don Lemon and four others following a January 19 protest at a St. Paul church
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz called the DOJ’s tactics “unheard of” and rejected claims of urgency, noting no violence occurred during the demonstration
One appellate judge acknowledged probable cause but ruled standard legal procedures should be followed instead of emergency intervention
The case exposes tensions between immigration enforcement, religious freedom protections, and First Amendment press rights under the Trump administration

DOJ’s Aggressive Push Meets Judicial Resistance

The Department of Justice sought arrest warrants for eight individuals after protestors entered Cities Church in St. Paul on January 19, 2026, following discovery that an ICE official served as pastor. While Magistrate Judge Doug Micko approved three warrants, he rejected five others including those for former CNN journalist Don Lemon and his producer, citing insufficient probable cause. The protestors allegedly yelled at churchgoers but committed no violent acts. U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen then demanded an emergency review, escalating the matter to Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz and ultimately the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal Judges Reject Emergency Claims as Overreach

Chief Judge Schiltz delivered a sharp critique of the DOJ’s emergency petition, calling the approach unprecedented and questioning why thousands of available federal officers could not secure churches over a single weekend if the threat was genuine. The judge emphasized that none of the protestors committed violence and that standard procedures existed for pursuing charges, including grand jury indictments scheduled for January 27. His ruling underscored judicial skepticism toward what appeared to be politically motivated prosecution tactics targeting a high-profile journalist covering immigration enforcement issues.

Appeals Court Finds Probable Cause But Blocks Arrest

The 8th Circuit panel, comprising Judges Kelly, Kobes, and Grasz, unanimously denied the DOJ’s mandamus petition on January 24. Judge Grasz’s concurring opinion acknowledged probable cause existed for civil rights charges related to interfering with religious freedom but concluded that forcing immediate arrests through appellate intervention was unnecessary when alternative legal remedies remained available. This nuanced ruling suggests the protestors may ultimately face charges through proper channels, yet firmly rejected the administration’s attempt to bypass standard judicial procedures for what amounted to disruptive but non-violent demonstration activity.

First Amendment Protections Tested Against Religious Liberty Claims

Attorney Abbe Lowell, representing Don Lemon, characterized the court rulings as confirmation of First Amendment protections for journalists covering newsworthy events. Lemon’s presence at the protest involved interviewing the ICE pastor, raising fundamental questions about press freedom during politically charged demonstrations. First Amendment legal scholars noted the case reinforces protections for on-scene reporting absent evidence of criminal conduct beyond mere presence. However, the incident also highlights legitimate concerns about protecting religious worship from disruption, creating a complex legal landscape where conservative values regarding both free speech and religious liberty clash with immigration enforcement priorities.

A Minnesota magistrate judge refused to charge Don Lemon for storming a St. Paul church with protestors.

AG Pam Bondi is supposedly “enraged” at the decision.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/YiEHwv8M7Y

— AF Post (@AFpost) January 22, 2026

The DOJ now faces decisions about whether to refile warrant applications with additional evidence or proceed through the standard grand jury process. Church attorneys have advocated for arrests as necessary deterrence against what they characterize as invasions of sacred worship spaces. The case emerged during heightened federal immigration enforcement activity in Minneapolis-St. Paul, including a separate fatal ICE-related shooting and a postponed visit by Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi. This broader context reveals how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies are generating friction points across multiple constitutional dimensions, forcing courts to balance law enforcement objectives against fundamental civil liberties that many Americans hold dear.