The FBI has made arrests tied to a January incident at Cities Church in St. Paul, and a magistrate judge declined to approve charges against former CNN host Don Lemon, though others connected to the church invasion have been arrested; the judge’s refusal raises questions about probable cause and the legal theory prosecutors planned to use, while the Department of Justice could still pursue charges through other means.
Federal agents moved in on suspects linked to the disruption at Cities Church, and media reports quickly noted one high-profile figure was at the center of attention. Authorities say a group entered the church as part of a protest that involved participants tied to a “Racial Justice Network” and what appeared to be anti-ICE advocacy. Public reporting tied those events to arrests in Minnesota, and observers have watched closely to see how prosecutors will proceed.
A magistrate judge rejected federal prosecutors’ bid to charge journalist Don Lemon related to the church protest, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.
The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the ongoing investigation.
Lemon was among those on who entered the church. Lemon has said he is not affiliated with the protest organizers and was there chronicling as a journalist.
Independent confirmation indicates the magistrate judge declined to sign a complaint that would have immediately placed Don Lemon under formal federal charges. Lemon maintains he was at the scene performing journalistic work rather than acting as a demonstrator or organizer. That defense sits at the heart of the dispute over whether the facts available at the time met the legal threshold required for a criminal complaint.
The reasons behind the magistrate’s decision are not publicly known, and court dockets do not automatically reveal rejected complaints. That lack of clarity is typical: prosecutors often draft complaints and affidavits that are only visible if a judge approves them and a charge is issued. Because Lemon was not charged after the magistrate’s action, the Department of Justice has not offered comment on his status.
What we don’t know yet — and is a signficant question — is whether the Magistrate who refused to sign the complaint for Don Lemon did so because he wasn’t convinced the facts set forth provided PC for the criminal charge alleged, or he wasn’t convinced that the charge itself is legally applicable to the conduct alleged in the affidavit.
Normally we would not see a rejected criminal complaint because it’s not posted on the Court’s docket and Lemon is not otherwise charged so DOJ’s policy is to not comment about him.
The question now is — if he was only going to be charged with a FACT Act misdemeanor, will DOJ now charge him via Information and simply bypass the need for a Complaint.
They could do that today.
Legal observers pointed out that a magistrate’s refusal can signal either doubts about the sufficiency of evidence or uncertainty over whether the alleged conduct fits the statute prosecutors intended to use. One practical consequence is that the DOJ still has tools it can deploy: if prosecutors decide the available facts support an Information rather than a magistrate-initiated complaint, they could proceed without returning to a magistrate for a new signature. That step would transform the procedural posture but not necessarily the underlying factual debate.
For the people who entered the church and face arrest, the situation is unfolding rapidly and will hinge on investigative materials, witness accounts, and how prosecutors frame the alleged offenses. Arrests reported in Minnesota indicate law enforcement is pursuing some participants more aggressively, and those cases will test how courts handle questions about protest, trespass, and the line between reporting and participation. Criminal defense lawyers will be watching plea prospects, potential statute applications, and constitutional defenses tied to expression and press activity.
From a public perspective, high-profile involvement in disruptive protests invites both media scrutiny and legal risk, and this episode is no exception. The presence of journalists at protests often complicates narratives about intent and conduct, and courts can play a decisive role in sorting whether someone’s role was observatory or participatory. The next steps in Minnesota will show whether prosecutors gather more evidence, adjust their charging strategy, or halt charges where the magistrate found the affidavit lacking.
The matter remains an active investigation with multiple moving parts, including arrests already made and unanswered legal questions about charging authority and probable cause. As authorities pursue those arrested and weigh whether to refile charges against others, the legal framework and the available evidence will determine how the cases proceed in federal court.
Add comment