Don Lemon Pleads Not Guilty to Civil Rights Charges After Minnesota Anti-ICE Protest

Former CNN anchor and independent journalist Don Lemon appeared in federal court in St. Paul, Minnesota on February 13, 2026, where he formally pleaded not guilty to a set of federal civil rights charges connected to his presence at a protest that disrupted a church service earlier this year. The case has sparked intense debate over press freedom, religious rights, and the limits of protest activity under U.S. law.
The Guardian
Lemon, now an independent broadcaster, was among nine people charged in connection with a protest at Cities Church in St. Paul on January 18. The protest targeted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies after the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent. Lemon has consistently maintained that he was present in a journalistic capacity, livestreaming and documenting the event for his show, and not participating in the protest itself.
At the arraignment, Lemon stood beside veteran attorneys and entered his plea without incident. “I will not be silenced,” he told reporters afterward, invoking the First Amendment and the importance of a free press in holding powerful institutions accountable.
The Charges
The federal government has charged Lemon under several statutes, including:
Conspiracy to deprive civil rights — alleging coordinated efforts to intimidate or interfere with the religious freedom of worshippers.
Violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act — traditionally used to prohibit obstruction or harassment at reproductive health facilities or houses of worship.
Prosecutors contend that the church service was disrupted by demonstrators chanting “ICE out” and other slogans, and that Lemon’s presence with protesters contributed to an environment that obstructed worshippers’ rights. Supporters of the charges say the group’s actions went beyond peaceful coverage and entered into interference with others’religious activities.
If convicted, Lemon and others could face penalties including fines and potential prison time, though legal experts say the government has yet to specify exact sentencing ranges tied to these counts.
Lemon’s Defense: Press Freedom and Journalism
Lemon’s defense team has centered its argument on the First Amendment, asserting that Lemon was performing core journalistic functions — interviewing participants, documenting events, and providing independent coverage of a protest that touched on matters of public concern.
Attorney Abbe David Lowell, representing Lemon, asked the court to return Lemon’s confiscated phone, arguing it contains crucial journalistic work product that was seized without proper cause. Legal filings also suggest his lawyers may seek access to grand jury transcripts to scrutinize the basis for the indictment.
In public statements, Lemon has highlighted his three-decade career covering major national stories and emphasized that nothing about the Minnesota protest alters the legal protections afforded to reporters. “The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless other journalists,” Lemon said outside the courthouse.
Inquirer.com
Other Defendants and Broader Context
Civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong and other activists also entered not-guilty pleas alongside Lemon. Several persons charged include activists and another independent journalist, Georgia Fort, who is scheduled to appear in court soon.
The Guardian +1
The protest itself was part of a broader wave of demonstrations in Minnesota and across the United States following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in separate encounters with federal immigration enforcement agents. These incidents have fueled heated national debates over immigration policy, law enforcement tactics, and civil liberties.
Public Reaction and Legal Debate
Reactions to the charges have been sharply divided. Press freedom organizations, including the National Association of Black Journalists, have condemned the federal action as an attempt to intimidate reporters and repress dissent — particularly in an era of heightened political polarization.
The Guardian
Dozens of Lemon supporters gathered outside the courthouse during the arraignment, chanting slogans like “Protect the Press,” underscoring public concern that the case could create a chilling effect on journalists covering contentious events.
Conversely, conservative political figures and some religious leaders have argued that the protest crossed a line by disrupting a worship service. They claim the charges are appropriate under existing laws that protect the rights of those engaging in religious practice.
Legal Complexity and What’s Next
Legal experts note that the case raises novel questions about the application of civil rights statutes in protest contexts — particularly when journalists are present. Whether Lemon’s actions constitute protected press activity or unlawful interference will likely hinge on how the defense frames his role and how prosecutors interpret the contours of the FACE Act and civil rights laws. �
AP News
As the legal process unfolds, Lemon’s plea ensures that the fight over these charges will move forward in court. For Lemon and his supporters, the case has become emblematic of broader concerns over press freedom and government power. For prosecutors and critics of the protest, it represents a test of legal boundaries in highly charged political demonstrations.
The next significant court date for Lemon and co-defendants is expected in the coming weeks, as both sides prepare more detailed arguments and motions ahead of pretrial proceedings.
The Guardian