DOJ Confirms Charges Are Imminent in Don Lemon, Anti-ICE Church Disruption
St. Paul, MN — The U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed that criminal charges are forthcoming against former CNN anchor Don Lemon and a cohort of anti-ICE demonstrators who forcibly entered a Minneapolis-area church during a worship service on January 18, 2026. Federal officials allege that the actions of Lemon and others went beyond peaceful protest and constituted violations of longstanding civil rights statutes.
The disruption occurred at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, where anti-immigration agitators stormed the sanctuary, chanting slogans and interrupting the ongoing service. Protesters alleged that one of the church’s pastors was an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a claim that has been vigorously disputed by church leadership and legal experts.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon announced Monday that Lemon, who livestreamed portions of the incursion, will face charges under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a federal statute originally enacted to protect civil rights in the post-Civil War era. Officials maintain that compelling entrants to cease worship and intimidating congregants may constitute coercive conduct that federal law prohibits.
Dhillon emphasized that Lemon’s self-description as a journalist at the scene will not safeguard him from accountability. “Simply claiming to be ‘covering a story’ does not absolve an individual of complicity when they knowingly embed with actors who intend to disrupt protected religious activity,” she said during a public appearance.
An antifa-style contingent of protesters, identified in social media posts and livestreams, entered the church sanctuary chanting “ICE out!” while others engaged in confrontational behavior toward parishioners and clergy alike. Videos captured by Lemon and other demonstrators show a group numbering between 30 and 40 people marching down the central aisle before ultimately leaving after skirmishing with churchgoers.
X Post: Conservative commentator Benny Johnson posted excerpts from Dhillon’s remarks, noting the legal basis for the prosecution and the potential for additional charges tied to conspiracy and interstate coordination.
Prosecutors are reportedly scrutinizing whether federal laws such as the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) — which, beyond protecting abortion clinics, also makes it illegal to “intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising … First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship” — were violated.
Complicating matters, a separate video surfaced showing Lemon seemingly acknowledging foreknowledge of the group’s plans before the church disruption occurred, despite later claims of neutrality. In that footage, Lemon identified key protest organizers and described preparatory reconnaissance conducted in the hours before the service.
X Video: An uploaded clip from January 18 shows demonstrators entering Cities Church while chanting; Lemon’s voice narrates segments of the action. The scene quickly drew national attention, igniting debates over media ethics, protest boundaries, and the sanctity of religious congregations.
The incident was precipitated by widespread outrage over the January 7 shooting death of Renee Nicole Good, a Minnesota woman killed by an ICE agent during a multi-agency enforcement action. Protesters cited Good’s death as the catalyst for their targeting of the church — mistakenly linking its pastor with ICE leadership — and framed their incursion as part of a broader anti-immigration justice movement.
Assistant Attorney General Dhillon and other DOJ officials signaled that they intend to pursue charges not only under the Ku Klux Klan Act and FACE Act but also potential conspiracy and civil-rights violation provisions. Discussions include whether any participants crossed state lines or utilized federal communications infrastructure to coordinate the disruption — factors that could elevate the culpability of several actors.
Church leadership has condemned the disruption as a violation of sacred space and an affront to religious liberty. “Our congregation came to worship,” said a representative for Cities Church. “The actions of these protestors amounted to a targeted, unwarranted invasion of our community and our rights.”
Legal experts observing the developing case have noted that the invocation of century-old civil rights statutes in this context raises complex constitutional questions, particularly regarding free speech and assembly protections. However, conservative commentators argue that the fundamental right to freely practice religion without intimidation must be upheld, and federal enforcement is appropriate when that boundary is transgressed.
Don Lemon, for his part, has responded publicly to the looming charges, maintaining that his presence was solely as a journalist exercising First Amendment protections. In statements carried in mainstream outlets, he dismissed the allegations as politically motivated and accused critics of scapegoating him because of his prominence and identity.
Observers on the right have pointed out the apparent contradiction between Lemon’s defense of protest coverage and his past commentary advocating for limitations on certain forms of expression. Conservative voices argue that if media figures choose to embed with radical elements, they must be prepared to face the legal consequences should those elements cross constitutional lines.
The case is set to intensify debates about the boundaries of protest, the responsibilities of journalists engaged in politically charged events, and the federal government’s role in protecting houses of worship from intimidation. With charges imminent, legal scholars and political analysts alike are watching closely as the DOJ prepares to file indictments that could reverberate nationwide.
10 High-Value Keywords
-
Don Lemon indictment
-
Cities Church disruption
-
DOJ civil rights charges
-
Ku Klux Klan Act prosecution
-
Anti-ICE protesters arrested
-
Religious service invasion
-
FACE Act violation
-
Minnesota church protest
-
Free speech vs religious rights
-
Federal charges imminent