Don Lemon Seeks Dismissal of Federal Church Protest Charges

Lemon and Fort Seek Dismissal of Church Protest Charges

Journalists Don Lemon, Georgia Fort, and dozens of co-defendants asked a federal court to throw out their cases stemming from a January church protest, FOX 9 reported.

The group targeted Cities Church in St. Paul because its pastor also served as an ICE field director. Federal prosecutors responded by charging defendants under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a 1994 statute primarily used to protect abortion clinics.

Attorneys for Don Lemon, Georgia Fort, argue First Amendment protects their church protest reporting

Arguments in Federal Court

Defense attorneys raised four dismissal arguments during the court hearing, asserting that the prosecution violates First Amendment protections, is politically motivated, and fails to establish a crime under the FACE Act. According to FOX 9, Lemon and Fort contend that the First Amendment protects them as journalists, noting that even the grand jury indictment acknowledges their presence.

Prosecutors pushed back against those claims, arguing that participating in the disruption of a church service falls outside constitutional protections. During court arguments, prosecutors maintained that a mob physically seizing control of private property constitutes the use of force, regardless of whether direct physical touching occurred. They also asserted that Cities Church functions commercially by sending funds to an overarching organization in Tennessee, thereby satisfying Commerce Clause requirements.

Instagram

Attorneys Argue over Political Motives and Dismissal Motions

Defense attorney Joe Thompson argued that the prosecution represents a vindictive effort targeting the administration’s perceived political enemies. Prosecutors countered that the charges are legitimate, noting that 36 other individuals also face charges and dismissing claims of singular targeting.

The magistrate presiding over the case will deliver a recommendation to another judge who holds final authority on the dismissal motions. Attorneys participating in the proceedings estimate that the ruling process will take months, potentially stretching into April.