Federal prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice appear to be distancing themselves from the circumstances surrounding the arrest of journalist Don Lemon, even as they continue to pursue criminal charges tied to a January protest at a Minnesota church.
Lemon, a former CNN anchor turned independent reporter, was taken into federal custody in Los Angeles after prosecutors secured a grand jury indictment alleging his involvement in a disruption of a worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul. Yet in subsequent court filings and public statements, prosecutors have emphasized that the arrest itself was a procedural matter—downplaying its significance as questions mount over why a high-profile journalist was taken into custody rather than summoned to court.
Prosecutors Emphasize Charges, Not Custody
The indictment, approved by DOJ prosecutors, charges Lemon under 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights and under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a statute more commonly associated with abortion-clinic obstruction cases. Prosecutors allege the defendants’ actions interfered with congregants’ right to freely exercise religion.
However, when pressed about the arrest decision, prosecutors have spoken about it as routine execution of an indictment rather than a discretionary escalation. Lemon was released without bail following his initial court appearance, a fact that has further fueled debate over whether custodial arrest was necessary at all.
DOJ Narrows the Scope of Responsibility
In filings, prosecutors have sought to keep the focus tightly on the alleged conduct at the church, repeatedly asserting that Lemon’s profession as a journalist is irrelevant to the case. They argue the prosecution is about conduct, not coverage, and have avoided addressing broader concerns about the chilling effect such arrests may have on press freedom.
That narrow framing has effectively allowed prosecutors to pursue the underlying charges while sidestepping criticism of the arrest itself—a move legal analysts say reflects an effort to insulate the DOJ from accusations of overreach.
Defense Challenges Prosecutorial Judgment
Lemon’s legal team has seized on that apparent distancing, arguing that prosecutors cannot separate the indictment from the arrest it authorized. Defense counsel contends the DOJ is stretching civil rights statutes beyond their traditional use and punishing constitutionally protected newsgathering by treating a journalist as a criminal suspect.
The defense also points to Lemon’s release without bail as evidence that prosecutors overstated the need for a dramatic arrest, particularly one carried out far from the charging jurisdiction.
A Case That Puts Prosecutors Under the Microscope
As the case moves toward its next hearing in federal court in Minnesota, attention is shifting away from Lemon alone and toward the choices made by DOJ prosecutors—from statute selection to arrest strategy.
Whether the courts accept the government’s attempt to separate the arrest from the prosecution may shape how aggressively federal authorities can proceed against journalists present at protests, and how much accountability prosecutors face when enforcement decisions spark constitutional concerns.
