A dramatic legal battle unfolded Friday evening as a federal appeals court refused the Justice Department’s urgent plea to authorize the arrest of Don Lemon and seven others. The charges stem from a protest that took place last weekend at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, igniting a firestorm of controversy.
The Justice Department had initially charged the former CNN host and seven fellow protestors with disrupting services at the church. This action sparked immediate debate, raising questions about the limits of protest and the protection of religious freedom.
Despite the charges, only three of the eight individuals involved in the protest were initially taken into federal custody. This selective enforcement raised eyebrows and fueled speculation about the motivations behind the Justice Department’s actions.
Earlier in the week, Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko dismissed the charges against Lemon and four other defendants. A potentially significant conflict of interest soon emerged: Judge Micko’s wife serves as an Assistant Attorney General in the office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Seeking to revive the case, the Justice Department appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting they compel the lower court to issue arrest warrants. The appeal centered on the argument that probable cause existed for the arrests.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately declined to intervene, refusing to order the lower court to issue the warrants. The three-judge panel consisted of Jane Kelly, appointed by President Obama, and Steven Grasz and Jonathan Kobes, both appointees of President Trump.
While the two Trump-appointed judges acknowledged the Justice Department had established probable cause for arresting Lemon and four others, they suggested alternative avenues for obtaining the warrants. This nuanced decision offered a path forward without directly overruling the lower court.
Court filings revealed that the Justice Department’s argument focused on allegations that the protestors unlawfully interfered with the churchgoers’ constitutionally protected right to practice their religion. The government argued the protest crossed the line into illegal disruption.
Although the ruling didn’t explicitly name all five defendants for whom warrants were sought, sources confirmed that Don Lemon was among them. The case has drawn intense scrutiny, highlighting the delicate balance between free speech and religious observance.
In the wake of the court’s decision, attorney Harmeet Dhillon offered a cryptic response, simply stating, “Stay tuned.” This suggests the legal battle is far from over and further developments are anticipated.
