Thirty-eight demonstrators charged with interrupting a church service in Minnesota this winter to protest President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies filed numerous legal motions on Monday challenging the validity of the indictment and the investigative methods employed by law enforcement. The filings, submitted in Federal District Court in St. Paul, mark the most extensive legal effort to date by defense teams to contest the charges.
Among those charged are former CNN anchor Don Lemon, civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, and journalist Georgia Fort. Prosecutors allege that the defendants conspired to deprive worshippers at Cities Church in St. Paul of their rights by disrupting a January 18 service, as well as conspiring to violate the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act, which prohibits the use of threats or force to impede individuals seeking reproductive health services or participating in worship.
The protesters assembled at Cities Church to oppose the involvement of one of its pastors, who serves as the acting director of the St. Paul office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a key figure in Operation Metro Surge. This federal operation involved heightened immigration raids across Minnesota.
Defense attorneys contend that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the agency responsible for building the prosecution, lacked authority to investigate the charges brought against the defendants. Typically, the FBI handles alleged violations of the statutes under which these charges were filed. However, the FBI did not participate in this case due in part to internal disruptions following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer, which prompted the resignation of a senior FBI agent in Minneapolis amid conflicting agency priorities.
Further, the defense attorneys accused HSI of engaging in "outrageous government conduct" by bypassing judicial oversight to gather evidence. Instead of securing search warrants or grand jury subpoenas, the agency used administrative summonses—tools primarily designed for customs investigations—to obtain data from cellphone providers, airlines, social media platforms, rental companies, and a state employment agency. According to court filings, more than 90 such summonses were issued, including one that was used to secretly obtain six months of cellphone records belonging to journalist Georgia Fort.
The defense also criticized prosecutors for applying a seldom-invoked provision of the FACE Act related to interference at houses of worship. They argued the statute was primarily designed to prevent anti-abortion protesters from blocking access to clinics and noted that the Justice Department under President Biden later acknowledged prior misapplications of the law in abortion-related cases. The lawyers emphasized that while President Trump pardoned some individuals charged under the abortion provision early in his second term, his administration has continued to pursue these church-related charges.
In their motion, the defense described the prosecution as politically motivated, asserting that it was aimed at punishing defendants for their political views. They warned that the case sets a precedent with a "clear and dangerous chilling effect" on those who seek to express dissent against U.S. government policies. The legal battle highlights broader tensions surrounding enforcement practices, protest rights, and agency jurisdiction in politically charged immigration cases.