The Justice Department pulled its request for an arrest warrant for Don Lemon tied to the Minneapolis anti-ICE church protest, but legal and political battles are far from over.
The Justice Department has withdrawn its request for a federal judge to issue arrest warrants for Don Lemon and four others connected to an anti-ICE demonstration that disrupted a church service in Minneapolis. A lower court judge had already refused to approve criminal complaints for several people involved, which prompted the DOJ to back off its immediate request. The withdrawal does not prevent prosecutors from returning with new filings or seeking an indictment through a grand jury. That uncertainty keeps the case active and politically charged.
The Justice Department has formally withdrawn its request for the chief judge in Minnesota’s federal court to issue arrest warrants for journalist Don Lemon and four others for their alleged involvement in an anti-ICE protest that disrupted a church service in Minnesota.
Their request was made after a lower court judge refused to approve criminal complaints against several people the department claims were part of the protest. A person familiar with the matter said that Lemon is one the individuals whose arrest warrants were declined.
Despite their withdrawal, the DOJ can still attempt to bring charges against Lemon, including through a grand jury indictment. Officials have not publicly said what their plans are moving forward.
A federal appeals court interaction followed the initial refusal, and that body did not order a judge to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon. The appeals panel did allow charges against several other defendants tied to the disruption, while leaving Lemon’s situation in limbo. The split outcome illustrates how judges can differ quickly on factual and legal thresholds in politically sensitive cases. For those watching, it looks like the courts are carefully parsing how to treat journalists and protesters under criminal statutes.
The contested incident took place inside a church service at Cities Church in St. Paul, where protest activity was accused of interfering with a religious gathering and potentially violating federal protections. Prosecutors argued the conduct supported criminal complaints, while a magistrate judge found those complaints lacking for some defendants. That judge’s decision prompted the DOJ to pause and reassess its path forward. The department retains tools—like grand juries—to revive charges if it chooses.
A federal appeals court declined to order a judge to sign an arrest for journalist Don Lemon for his actions at a protest inside a Minnesota church, court documents show.
The ruling, which was unsealed Saturday, referenced the Department of Justice’s attempts to arrest eight individuals allegedly involved in the anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest that disrupted a service at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
A magistrate judge only approved three of the eight arrests, court records show. A person familiar with the matter said that Lemon is one of the five whose arrest warrants were declined.
One of the judges on the panel, Judge Leonard Steven Grasz, wrote in a concurrence that the Justice Department “clearly establish[ed] probable cause for all five arrest warrants,” but “failed to establish that it has no other adequate means” of obtaining them.
Lemon, a former CNN host who now makes content independently, has said that he was present at the demonstration as a journalist and not as a protester.
“They’re going to try again, and they’re going to try again.
And guess what? Here I am,” Lemon said on his YouTube show Thursday night.
“Keep trying. That’s not gonna stop me from being a journalist. You’re not gonna diminish my voice.”
Prosecutors can still attempt to obtain another criminal complaint and arrest warrant, or can seek a grand jury indictment.
Federal Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko concluded there was no probable cause to press charges against Lemon, noting the journalist did not partake in criminal behavior during the protest. Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz agreed, pointing out that two of the five individuals were not demonstrators but a journalist and producer with no evidence of criminal action or conspiracy. That judicial stance raises concerns among conservatives about prosecutorial overreach and the treatment of the press. At the same time, prosecutors keep legal options open, so the story is not finished.
The political fallout has already played out in public statements and on media programs, with allies and critics taking clear sides. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, during an appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show said that prosecutors would “pursue this to the ends of the earth” and that the DOJ had already established “the groundwork for pursuing FACE Act and conspiracy” charges against the podcaster. Those words signal a hardline stance from some in the federal government.
Republican observers see the episode as another example of a Justice Department that picks its targets in a politically tilted manner, especially when media figures are involved. Critics argue the DOJ should tread carefully when its actions intersect with first amendment concerns and independent journalism. Supporters of prosecution counter that disruptive conduct inside a place of worship and coordinated interference with federal functions deserve accountability.
Whatever happens next, the legal questions are now as central as the politics: how the FACE Act and conspiracy statutes will be applied, what evidence can meet probable cause, and whether a grand jury will be convened. Judges have already pushed back on the most immediate attempt to secure arrests, but prosecutors retain avenues to continue. The case will likely evolve in court filings and hearings, not just headlines, and it will continue to test the boundaries between protest, journalism, and criminal law.
