A federal appeals court has turned down the Justice Department’s urgent push to arrest former CNN anchor Don Lemon and four others, sparking a heated debate over legal boundaries and religious freedom.
A three-judge panel, including Jane Kelly (an Obama appointee) and Steven Graz and Jonathan Kobes (Trump appointees), unanimously rejected the Trump administration’s request tied to a Jan. 18 demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. By Monday afternoon, the DOJ announced it would no longer pursue a judge’s approval for Lemon’s arrest.
The ruling came on Friday, following a lower court’s refusal to issue arrest warrants for Lemon and the others.
The issue has sparked debate over whether the government overstepped in its aggressive pursuit of arrests. Many see this as a clash between protecting sacred spaces and safeguarding individual rights. The question remains: was this a genuine emergency or a political power play?
Let’s rewind to the initial incident at Cities Church, where a demonstration disrupted a service, leading to charges against eight individuals, including Lemon. According to the New York Post, Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko approved charges against three—Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—for conspiracy against rights by interfering with worship. Prosecutors were directed to seek a grand jury indictment for the remaining five, including Lemon.
Unsatisfied, the DOJ pressed Minnesota Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz to review the evidence and order arrests by 2 p.m. local time on Friday. Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, called the demand unprecedented, noting no judge in his district could recall such a move. He delayed a meeting with colleagues to Tuesday due to security concerns tied to high-profile visitors in Minneapolis.
Schiltz wrot in a letter to the Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, highlighting the rarity of the government’s approach.
I have surveyed all of our judges — some of whom have been judges in our District for over 40 years — and no one can remember the government asking a district judge to review a magistrate judge’s denial of an arrest warrant
The government claimed urgency, arguing that failing to arrest Lemon and the others risked “copycat” disruptions at churches. Schiltz shot this down, pointing out the lack of violence alleged against the five and the widespread publicity of the leaders’ arrests. Adding fuel to the fire, Schiltz questioned the logic of targeting five more individuals, including a journalist and his producer, when dozens of others involved remain free. “The government does not explain why the arrests of five more people … would make Cities Church any safer,” he noted. This selective focus raises eyebrows—why prioritize optics over substance?
Judge Steven Graz, in a concurring statement, admitted prosecutors had established probable cause for the warrants but failed to prove no other remedies existed. This nod to evidence, paired with rejection of the arrest push, suggests the court isn’t blind to the case’s merits—just the method. It’s a subtle rebuke of heavy-handed tactics.
Meanwhile, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon hinted on “The Megyn Kelly Show” that the DOJ might leverage the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to pursue charges. This law, originally tied to clinic access, also covers interference with religious worship. Is this a creative stretch or a fitting tool for justice?
Schiltz also dismissed claims of an imminent threat to Cities Church on Jan. 25, suggesting law enforcement presence as a better deterrent than arrests. With thousands of officers in town, why not secure the church directly instead of chasing questionable warrants? It’s a practical jab at the DOJ’s priorities.
By Monday, the DOJ withdrew its request for Schiltz to consider warrants for Lemon and the four others. A docket entry confirmed Schiltz would take no further action on the matter. This retreat feels like a quiet admission of overplaying their hand.
Critics of the progressive agenda might see the initial demonstration as another example of sacred spaces being trampled under the guise of expression. Yet, the government’s response—rushing to arrest without exhausting legal avenues—risks alienating even those who agree on protecting religious freedom. Balance, not bulldozing, should guide the path forward.
What’s next for Cities Church and the broader fight over worship rights? The DOJ could still pursue a grand jury indictment, as Schiltz repeatedly noted. For now, this legal skirmish serves as a reminder: zeal for justice mustn’t outrun respect for process.
