Don Lemon and the First Amendment

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Updated Feb. 3, 2026 1:02 pm ET | William McGurn

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In Minneapolis a war is raging, and it’s no longer limited to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Thanks to criminal indictments, the battlefront has moved from city streets to federal courts. At issue are two different rights, each guaranteed by the First Amendment: freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Two defendants invoke the former, while members of the church that was the target of protest invoke the latter.

The star of this legal drama is former CNN anchor Don Lemon. On the morning of Jan. 18, according to prosecutors, Mr. Lemon joined 20 to 40 agitators in a “coordinated takeover-style attack” on Cities Church in St. Paul during Sunday service.

On Friday, Mr. Lemon and eight others were criminally charged on two counts stemming from that attack. The first is conspiracy to deprive Cities Church congregants of their religious liberty, and the second is interfering with their religious liberty in a house of worship. Though Mr. Lemon is the much bigger name, another arrested and charged was Georgia Fort, an independent journalist with roughly 8,000 followers on YouTube.

Those who broke up the service were protesting ICE deportations. They chose Cities Church, they say, because one of the church pastors, David Easterwood, is also an ICE official. In a statement after his client’s arrest, Mr. Lemon’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, invoked Mr. Lemon’s First Amendment right:

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Mr. Lowell wrote. “The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

He’s correct—up to a point. Mr. Lemon’s constitutional right to report at Cities Church isn’t in question. But another part of the First Amendment...

---

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: church; lemon; media; minnesota

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I meant to include the WSJ’s subtitle: “Newsmen have no right to disobey the law or to disrupt religious exercise.”

[butlerweave]

He was an Invader not a journalist

[READINABLUESTATE]

One persons rights begin where anothers end, no gap, no overlap.

[T.B. Yoits]

Don Lemon may try to claim he's a journalist but he's already on tape prior to the church invasion, letting it slip that he was part of the invasion.

Matt Walsh retweeted a video from Big Fish:
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2017614587403575381

"After we do this operation, you'll see it live." - Don Lemon

There's no "I'm not with them. I'm a journalist.", after clearly stating "After we do this operation."

[PGalt]

Interesting. Lying Lemon has lying lawyer Lowell to lie for him.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

This will be an interesting case. I think its a mistake to charge Lemon for a couple reasons. First, it gives his dying career the publicity he needs to revive it. He was going nowhere fast and now he can claim to be a martyr to Dictator Trump. Second, the case is not a slam dunk. This article goes through the legal standard and Alan Dershowitz goes through it in more detail - as a journalist, Lemon has a right to be at the church and report. Whether he broke the law is going to turn on whether he did something more than that. For instance, getting in the pastor’s or a church-goer’s face and screaming. Physically attacking or restraining someone. What about just being in the church? Like it or not, a judge probably won’t convict him for just being there even though he was not there to be part of the service. The worst result here would be Lemon being charged and found innocent. He would get the career fuel that he wants with no consequences for his disgusting behavior. Thus, absent a video of him doing something egregious like screaming in someone’s face or physically confronting someone (which maybe they have), they should have let him go.

[spintreebob]

If MAGA activists were to invade the Studios of CNN and disrupt a broadcast they could be rightly arrested for obstructing Freedom of the Press.

Disrupting a church service is worse than painting a swastika on a house of worship and should be compared to that.

[T.B. Yoits]

...absent a video of him doing something egregious like screaming in someone’s face or physically confronting someone...

Those who aid and abet the crime get charged along with the worst offenders.

...as a journalist, Lemon has a right to be at the church and report

Except he wasn't there as a "journalist". See Post 5.

[ridesthemiles]

ABBE LOWELL IS A SNAKE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER

[T.B. Yoits]

It’s not just the disruption, it’s also the intimidation against the victims’ freedom to worship in the future.

[Political Junkie Too]

Their religious liberty claims haven’t received the attention they should from a media almost exclusively worried about Mr. Lemon’s claim to First Amendment protections—which he invoked that day. “I’m not here as an activist,” Mr. Lemon said during his livestream as the protestors disrupted the church. “I’m here as a journalist.” Another fact not getting attention is that the pastor said he asked protestors to leave the church and they didn’t.

There is no first amendment protections to a class of people who self-identify as "journalists." The right to a free press is the right of the people to publish. Everyone in that church who pulled out their cell phones and recorded Lemon and his associates were "journalists" too.

Claiming "journalist" is no shield to arrest in this case.

-PJ

[alexander_busek]

Lemon's actions were no more illegal than if he had plotted in advance with robbers to break into a jewelry store and steal the merchandise, and had merely stood there in amidst the smashed glass cabinets while filming the heist and interviewing the terrified customers and store clerks.

Regards,

[ridesthemiles]

“AFTER WE DO THIS OPERATION, YOU’LL SEE IT LIVE”===LEMON.

HIS OWN WORDS

PROSECUTE HIM TO THE HILT-—50 YEARS ISN’T ENOUGH IN JAIL

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

One persons rights begin where anothers end, no gap, no overlap.

Yes.

You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to force others to listen to you.

[DPMD]

Color me extremist but I suspect that a person exercising one constitutional right isn’t permitted, while exercising that right, to infringe on another person’s constitutional right being enjoyed.

[FoxInSocks]

One example, he was attempting to interview the pastor. He’s interrupting the service. He easily could have waited until afterward.

Lemon has a right to write and publish whatever story he wants — freedom of speech, speaking. He does not have a right to interrupt the religious practices or rites of others.

[FoxInSocks]

Further, would it be all right to accompany a crew on a home invasion or a bank robbery?

I don’t see a whole lot of difference in principle if he were to tell a homeowner, “Sir, I’m allowed to be in your house during this burglary because I’m a journalist. What are you feeling right now?”

[frogjerk]

Dersh is wrong. Lemon has no right to be IN the church and report. It’s more than private property, it is a sanctuary. He violated our First Enumerated Right to Religion.

[frogjerk]

His mere presence after being asked to leave is enough to establish he was a bad actor.