A federal case against protesters and journalists involved in a January demonstration at a St. Paul church opposing President Trump’s immigration policies has encountered significant legal challenges and prosecutorial missteps, raising questions about the government's handling of politically sensitive cases.
The protest at Cities Church took place shortly after the death of Renee Good, a Minneapolis woman killed by an immigration agent. Authorities responded swiftly, arresting nearly 40 people present at the church, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon and local journalist Georgia Fort, who were covering the event. The Justice Department’s civil rights division, led by Harmet K. Dhillon, aggressively pursued charges, with officials framing the incident as part of a broader pattern of unrest involving left-wing protesters.
However, the case, now proceeding in Federal District Court in St. Paul, has been marred by a series of procedural errors and judicial concerns. Defense attorneys have alleged that prosecutors rushed to bring headline-making charges without sufficient evidence, a claim that several judges have echoed. In May, a judge rejected numerous search warrants on the basis that they were unlikely to yield evidence of criminal wrongdoing. More recently, a magistrate judge requested access to grand jury transcripts to investigate whether prosecutors acted improperly during the indictment process—a highly unusual measure.
Problems also emerged around the government’s efforts to obtain evidence. Lawyers for the defense contend that investigators mishandled the search of Mr. Lemon’s cellphone by obtaining a warrant from Minnesota authorities despite the phone being seized in California. Further questioning is raised over prosecutors’ use of administrative subpoenas—typically employed in customs enforcement rather than criminal cases—to collect information from defendants. Defense attorneys argue these cumulative errors have undermined the presumption of prosecutorial regularity and jeopardized the integrity of the case.
Prosecutors have acknowledged some mistakes but characterize them as inadvertent and maintain that the case is proceeding normally, with defendants actively contesting the charges. Nearly 30 defendants have been offered plea deals involving guilty pleas to misdemeanor charges without prison time, but none have accepted the agreements, according to defense counsel.
The case illustrates a recurring pattern observed in multiple cities where federal immigration enforcement actions—often initiated amid political fervor—have resulted in prosecutions that falter due to insufficient evidentiary support or procedural flaws. Within the Minnesota U.S. attorney’s office, at least three career prosecutors resigned, disturbed by the handling of the investigation and the inflammatory public statements from Justice Department officials. One former prosecutor, Lauren Roso, cited concerns about the case’s pace and conduct as a factor in her departure.
Initially, the government sought criminal complaints against journalists covering the protest, but federal judges repeatedly rejected those efforts, citing a lack of evidence implicating reporters in wrongdoing. The formal indictments ultimately charged defendants with conspiracy under the Face Act, a statute designed to prevent intimidation related to reproductive health services and religious worship. Over time, additional defendants were added, but charges against at least one—Heather Danae Lewis—were dropped due to mistaken identity.
Prosecutors assert their ability to prove the case through eyewitness testimony, including that of church pastor Jonathan Parnell, who reported feeling threatened during the protest, as well as through video recordings of the event. They also contended that journalists Lemon and Fort participated in organizing the protest alongside activists, a claim the defense disputes, arguing that their clients were engaged solely in reporting and did not partake in disruptive conduct.
Recently, courts scrutinized disputed statements in search warrant applications, including false claims that Fort used her camera as a weapon or shouted provocative slogans. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko agreed to carefully review the grand jury process after defense lawyers raised concerns that misleading information may have influenced the indictment.
The case has been primarily managed by Justice Department attorneys based in Washington rather than locally, adding to tensions. Defense counsel, many of whom formerly served as federal prosecutors in Minnesota, have criticized the government’s approach as premature and investigative mismanagement. One attorney described the sequence as a case "charged first and then investigated later," suggesting the legal and procedural difficulties encountered thus far may have been anticipated with a more cautious strategy.
As the proceedings continue, the St. Paul case remains emblematic of the challenges faced when prosecuting controversial protests and highlights the fragility of politically charged federal enforcement efforts.