Don Lemon retains former U.S. Attorney for defense against federal charges; judges question evidence

2026-02-12

The BareStory

Former television host Don Lemon has hired former acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson to defend him against federal charges stemming from a January protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon and eight others were indicted in late January on charges of conspiracy and violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits the use of force or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person at a place of religious worship.

Prosecutors allege the group disrupted services at Cities Church during a demonstration regarding the death of Renee Nicole Good and suspicions that the church’s pastor collaborated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Lemon has stated he was present at the church solely as a journalist to report on the protest. According to a notice of appearance filed Tuesday, Thompson—who was appointed by President Trump in 2025 before resigning from the Justice Department in January—will serve as counsel alongside Lemon's lead attorney, Abbe Lowell.

The prosecution has reportedly faced skepticism from the judiciary. Magistrate Judge Doug Micko initially rejected arrest warrants for Lemon and others due to a lack of probable cause, while Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz noted there was "no evidence" that the journalists involved engaged in criminal behavior. Additionally, sources indicated that career prosecutors in Minnesota declined to participate in the case due to a lack of evidence, leaving the indictment to be brought by politically appointed lawyers.

In response, a Justice Department spokesperson stated the department "stands firmly behind the highly qualified attorneys" handling the matter. Legal experts have predicted the charges may be dismissed, arguing that the application of the FACE Act to houses of worship is constitutionally flawed because churches typically lack the "interstate commerce" connection required for federal jurisdiction. The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on Friday.

Left Perspective

Criminalizing the Fourth Estate
Exposing Institutional Weaponization
Defending Dissenting Voices

Right Perspective

Safeguarding Sacred Sanctuaries
Policing Federal Jurisdiction
Demanding Evidentiary Rigor

Left Perspective

• Criminalizing the Fourth Estate This perspective views the indictment of a journalist as a direct assault on the mechanisms of accountability. By charging a reporter who claims he was present solely to document the event, the state risks establishing a precedent where observation is equated with participation. The judicial finding of "no evidence" regarding criminal behavior vindicates the fear that this is an attempt to blind the public eye.

• Exposing Institutional Weaponization The revelation that career prosecutors in Minnesota declined the case, leaving it to political appointees, signals a dangerous erosion of Department of Justice neutrality. This camp interprets the split as proof that the legal system is being used to settle scores rather than enforce justice. It suggests the charges are performative "lawfare" designed to intimidate critics rather than a legitimate application of the penal code.

• Defending Dissenting Voices The protest’s context—challenging alleged collaboration between a church pastor and ICE regarding a migrant's death—is seen as vital civic engagement. Applying the FACE Act, originally designed to protect medical access, to a church setting is viewed as a chilling expansion of state power. This framework argues that protecting the institution of the church should not come at the expense of silencing valid grievances against state enforcement agencies.

Right Perspective

• Safeguarding Sacred Sanctuaries This lens prioritizes the sanctity of the church as a bedrock institution essential to social order. regardless of the political motivation behind the disruption, the physical interference with a worship service is seen as a violation of community peace that requires legal consequence. The FACE Act’s application here is initially viewed through the necessity of preserving the "safe harbor" nature of religious spaces against chaotic intrusion.

• Policing Federal Jurisdiction Despite the desire for order, this camp applies a strict scrutiny regarding the federal government's reach into local matters. The argument that the FACE Act lacks the necessary "interstate commerce" connection to apply to a local church resonates with the philosophy of limited government. This perspective fears that allowing federal involvement in local trespassing or disruption issues erodes state sovereignty and constitutional boundaries.

• Demanding Evidentiary Rigor The Traditionalist values the integrity of the legal process over political outcomes. The skepticism from the judiciary—specifically the rejection of arrest warrants due to lack of probable cause—is seen as the system properly functioning to check prosecutorial overreach. The fact that the defense has retained a former Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney reinforces the belief that competence and the rule of law must transcend partisan divides to ensure a fair trial.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader: The outcome of this case could define whether journalists can face criminal prosecution for documenting protests, potentially affecting the media's willingness to cover events where civil disobedience occurs if observation is legally equated with participation. A ruling on the applicability of the FACE Act to houses of worship may establish new limits on federal jurisdiction over local religious institutions, specifically regarding the constitutional requirement of an interstate commerce connection. The divergence between career prosecutors who declined the case and the political appointees who pursued it may influence public perception regarding the neutrality of federal law enforcement and the use of the legal system for political purposes. This litigation will clarify the legal balance between the right to protest alleged collaboration between religious leaders and government agencies versus the protection of worship services from physical disruption.

Don Lemon retains former U.S. Attorney for defense against federal charges; judges question evidence

The BareStory

Left Perspective

Right Perspective

How it may affect me

Read the story at