By Trendsetter Tribune 
The Department of Justice has officially filed a superseding indictment against journalist Don Lemon and several other individuals following the disruption of a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, in January 2026.
This new filing follows a tumultuous legal battle in which a federal magistrate judge initially rejected the DOJ’s attempt to bring charges, prompting a sharp rebuke from the Attorney General’s office.
Charges and Allegations
The grand jury indictment alleges that Lemon participated in a conspiracy to interfere with the religious rights of congregants at Cities Church, where a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official is a pastor.
- Conspiracy: Allegations that Lemon worked with protesters to target the church.
- Civil Rights Violations: Charges of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits intentionally interfering with or intimidating individuals practicing their religion.
- Journalistic vs. Criminal Acts: The government alleges Lemon was not merely reporting, but rather “peppered” the pastor with questions to promote the protest’s message and took steps to maintain operational secrecy.
Defense and First Amendment Concerns
Lemon, who was arrested in Los Angeles while covering the Grammy Awards, has pleaded not guilty. His defense team is vigorously fighting the charges on First Amendment grounds.
“Should the Department of Justice continue with a stunning and troubling effort to silence and punish a journalist for doing his job, Don will call out their latest attack on the rule of law and fight any charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.” — Abbe Lowell, Counsel for Don Lemon
Legal and Political Context
This case has drawn national attention and backlash from press freedom advocacy groups, who view the prosecutions as government intimidation.
- Unusual Use of Law: The FACE Act has rarely been used to prosecute interference at houses of worship, typically being reserved for reproductive health clinics.
- Magistrate Pushback: The initial refusal of a magistrate judge to approve arrest warrants highlighted concerns about the sufficiency of evidence presented by the DOJ.