By now, you’ve seen the news: Last week, former CNN anchor and now “independent web journalist” Don Lemon was arrested and is facing federal criminal charges for the January 18 disruption of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The attack on Cities Church is one of the most significant church-related incidents in America in recent years, igniting debate over First Amendment rights of speech and assembly for protestors versus the First Amendment rights to gather peacefully for worship for churches. It is especially relevant to the Southern Baptist Convention, as Cities Church is part of the SBC. 

Many pastors across the United States, SBC or not, have understandably felt the burden to address the attack, either in the pulpit or in leadership discussions. 

To assist you and your church in discussing the incident and the legal issues at stake, here are five answers to the top questions I’m receiving as a lawyer for churches, followed by four recommendations on how you and your church can respond.

1. What happened?

As mentioned, Lemon was fired from CNN in April 2023. This is important because it means he does not hold press credentials issued by a major media outlet or network. In 2024, Lemon launched “The Don Lemon Show” on online platforms like YouTube. And while Lemon lives in New York, he had flown to Minneapolis to cover the event. 

Much of what we know about the incident comes from Lemon’s own cameras and the cameras of other agitators. On January 18, Lemon livestreamed “Operation Pullup,” organized by Minneapolis attorney and Black Lives Matter activist Nekima Levy Armstrong (Levy-Armstrong has also been arrested and charged). 

In the livestream video, Lemon is seen meeting with protest organizers in a parking lot. He tells viewers that Armstrong’s plan is to “surprise people, catch them off guard, and hold them to account.”  Lemon even kisses Armstrong on the cheek and thanks her. Armstrong says they’re about to “disrupt business as usual.”

Lemon went to great lengths to keep the mission’s details secret, presumably to help the group maximize its impact. When he interviews participants, he cautions them not to share details. He reiterates that “we” are carrying out a “clandestine” operation, and he doesn’t “want to give [information about the target] up.” 

In a car on the way to the church, Lemon and his producer discuss that they are not allowed to go inside. However, once the car stops, Lemon says he’s going inside and “always bet on black.” But he cautions the producer not to go on church property, and to stand on the sidewalk – a command the producer ultimately violates.

Once Lemon entered the building, the activists began loudly chanting and disrupting the service. The activists state they are protesting because one of the Church’s pastors works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency charged with enforcing immigration law.  

As the attack continues, church members can be seen streaming out the doors, trying to flee the conflict. One person falls while fleeing, slipping on ice, and breaking their arm. The livestream video captured activists loudly chanting, and bewildered members were not sure what to do.

Lemon is repeatedly asked to leave by multiple people from the church, but he does not leave.  “In our modern era, people think that to have protests you have to be cordoned off to a certain area…you have to be willing to go into places and make people uncomfortable. That’s what this country is about.” Later, he says it’s “traumatic,” and then adds, “but that’s what protesting is about.”

At various times, Lemon says the protest has political, religious, and even racial motivations.  The agitators were trying to deprive the church of peace, so long as its elder had a role in enforcing immigration laws.  One protestor screamed that Cities Church was a house of Satan.  It is fair to say Armstrong and Lemon profess a different religion from Cities Church’s Biblical Christianity.

Inside, Lemon asks Armstrong who he should “talk to.” He approaches Pastor Parnell with a cameraman in tow. Parnell says he’s asked the protesters to leave and that this is shameful. Parnell asks him to leave, but, once again, Lemon does not.  

Instead, Lemon posted himself at the church’s main door, where he confronted parishioners, conducted harassing interviews, and prevented them from leaving.  When they attempt to leave, Lemon complains, “they won’t listen to the facts,” taunting them for walking away.

In later affidavits, investigators said the video showed a female parishioner in the corner of the church holding two toddlers in a protective way, with what appears to be a look of anxiety and fear on her face [One Victim] informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. 

One agitator was screaming and getting in people’s faces, including women and young children. According to one person, people in the church “were terrorized, our children were weeping, college students and young women were sobbing, it was impactful, and it will take time to work through.”

Reports also indicate that St. Paul police were called to the scene but did not intervene or arrest anyone.

2. What laws did Lemon allegedly violate?

The individuals arrested so far have been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. §§ 248(a)(2), (b), and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).

The Ku Klux Klan Act. 18 U.S.C. § 241 was part of the 1870 Enforcement Act, commonly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. The Enforcement Act was designed to prohibit conspiracies against the civil rights of black Americans during Reconstruction. It prohibits conspiracies to injure, threaten, or intimidate anyone in the free exercise of their constitutional rights.  In this case, the agitators are charged with conspiring to threaten and intimidate people in the church as they exercised their freedom of religion.

The FACE Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 248 is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE Act”). This law was initially passed to punish pro-life protestors who obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with access to abortion clinics. But a 1994 Amendment added places of “religious worship” to the list of protected facilities. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and up to one year in prison.

Here, Lemon is charged with conspiracy and overtly obstructing and interfering with worshippers’ access to their place of worship.

Additional Charges for Aiding and Abetting in a Federal Crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) makes a person who aids and abets in a federal crime guilty of the underlying crime. This would mean that, whether or not they committed illegal acts themselves, individuals who conspired to disrupt the services are liable for the crimes committed by other agitators.

3. Did judges “reject” these charges as lacking evidence?

No. A federal criminal prosecution can begin in three ways: a grand jury indictment, a criminal information, or a complaint.  Each of these methods includes safeguards to prevent the government from unilaterally arresting individuals without “probable cause,” a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Federal prosecutors initially filed a “criminal information” about 48 hours after the incident, in an effort to prevent “copycat” incidents the following Sunday. Criminal informations are then submitted to a federal magistrate judge. The federal magistrate judge assigned to the case agreed to issue charges against three individuals. But he said the affidavit accompanying the information document did not include enough detail about others, including Lemon, to establish probable cause.  

Federal prosecutors then filed an emergency appeal to the next level, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel there declined to intervene. One judge said the video clearly provided probable cause to charge all the participants, including Lemon. However, the panel agreed that, because the Government had the opportunity to try again before the magistrate or present the matter to a grand jury, there was no need for the court to order emergency relief.

Prosecutors, of course, had been obtaining additional information in their investigation. They presented a more detailed indictment to a grand jury. They also made specific allegations about Lemon’s “overt” actions during the disruption.  The grand jury agreed there was probable cause to charge nine demonstrators, including Lemon

So, no judge has said Lemon could not be charged, and no judge has said Lemon should not be convicted. A magistrate judge said the initial filing failed to provide enough detail about Lemon’s participation to show probable cause. One of the 8th Circuit judges disagreed, saying the video was sufficient; however, they would not “overrule” a decision that was merely preliminary. The Government could present more information to the judge or the grand jury, and did so.  

Once the grand jury was shown additional information gathered during the investigation, it said the prosecutors had shown probable cause to charge Lemon. Lemon, of course, will have a chance to contest the charges in court.

4. Isn’t Don Lemon protected as a “journalist” by the First Amendment?

Lemon has the same Free Speech and Free Press rights as any American. But there is no special Constitutional protection for “journalists,” compared to other citizens. The First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting the freedoms of speech and the press.  But the right to use “the press” just means everyone has the right to make statements in print, like they have the freedom to speak verbally. Gathering news in a lawful way is a protected activity, but gathering news is not a justification for otherwise illegal conduct. 

The First Amendment does not create a special set of rules for “the press” or “journalists.”

Lawyers for the right and the left universally acknowledge that the First Amendment does not give anyone a right to trespass on private property. Even the ACLU tells protestors that “Owners of private property can set rules limiting your free speech in most instances. If you defy the property owner’s rules, they can order you off their property (and can have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).”  

The livestream video shows several people in the church, including the pastor, telling Lemon to leave.  Lemon did not leave when they requested.  Lemon was at least trespassing.

The video also shows Lemon taking directions from the protest leaders, obstructing and harassing parishioners trying to leave. This is strong evidence of conspiracy and direct interference with church members trying to worship. 

The bottom line is this: the Constitution does not give journalists a right to trespass or interfere with the Free Exercise of religion on private property. Or, as Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, put it: “The paramount 1st Amd. right inside a house of God is freedom to worship. Invading private property isn’t protected speech & claiming ‘I’m a journalist’ doesn’t give you a pass to break the law.”

5. How should churches respond?

As a lawyer who frequently represents churches and faith groups, the indictment of Lemon and other agitators should provoke churches to respond in at least four ways:

First, give thanks. We can give thanks to the Holy Spirit for giving Pastor Parnell the wisdom to speak clearly as his church was under fire.

We can also give thanks for the blessing of living in the United States, at a time when the laws protect religious liberty and the freedom of Christians to worship. It is also a blessing to have a government willing to enforce those laws and a court system that hears such cases.  While Christians in other countries are regularly harassed and persecuted during their meetings, in America, that has been an anomaly.

American Christians cannot take such blessings lightly; our gratitude compels us to vote and speak out at every opportunity to make sure religious freedom is protected. If we do not, religious freedom will be subordinated to the perverted “justice” of mobs willing to disrupt our churches.  

Second, get involved. Paul, as a Roman citizen, used his rights to access Roman courts of justice to plead his case and share the gospel.  As Americans, Southern Baptists have an even greater opportunity and responsibility to use their rights as citizens to protect themselves and other churches.

Members of Cities Church will have opportunities to ask judges to maintain the peace and to punish wrongdoers using criminal and civil remedies.  Baptists have long believed it is appropriate to ask “magistrates” (i.e., government officials) to uphold the peace and do justice.  

We should prayerfully support Cities Church and its members as they, like Paul, use the courts to seek justice and protection.  Internal church discipline cannot provide this remedy.  In considering Paul’s advice in I Corinthians 6, John Calvin says, “Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges,” but adds that Paul calls us to ensure our motive is not revenge or harassment. Even though Lemon and Armstrong claim to be Christians themselves, it would be a great danger and injustice to allow violence and disruption of churches to become the norm in America. The agitators have created the necessity for civil justice.

Third, get a plan. In the wake of the charges, some influential people, including some pastors, say the law should protect agitators like Lemon—and not churches.  Thus, it is not hard to imagine future, copycat disruptions.

Jordan Howe, a Baptist deacon and law enforcement officer, recently laid out an excellent theological and practical call for churches to prepare in an article for CBL. He writes: 

“The church’s sanctuary is a holy place, and worship should maintain a sacred preeminence in our lives. For this reason, Christians, especially those tasked with shepherding, should look to address these disruptions immediately. A gentle and lowly approach to an invasion simply will not work. God has spoken in his word, and the church should respond accordingly.”

Thankfully, several organizations with expertise can assist churches in preparing protection and response plans. Howe has started Kingdom Defense Training to help churches plan a response.  I have received wise counsel from Strategos International and appreciated their training for churches.

There are several other groups offering similar services. I would encourage churches to seek expert help to understand their state’s laws, the roles of individuals and law enforcement, and to begin planning how to protect worship services and attendees from violent disruption. 

Fourth, get on your knees in prayer. Fundamentally, each of us should be moved to prayer as we witness these deeply disturbing events and the fallout. We should offer prayers of thanks for laws and government to demonstrate justice. Prayers for peace in our riotous cities. Prayers for Holy Spirit wisdom as pastors and elders respond. 

And prayers for courage as Christians realize they will be attacked for their Christian witness, no matter the “tone” they use.  

Rest assured, the Center for Baptist Leadership will continue to provide a voice to Conservative Southern Baptists as they give thanks, get involved, prepare, and pray for the days ahead.