Don Lemon walked into a St. Paul courtroom Friday and pleaded not guilty to federal civil rights charges stemming from an anti-ICE protest at a Minnesota church last month. The former CNN host faces two counts: conspiracy against the right of religious freedom at a place of worship, and injuring, intimidating, and interfering with the exercise of religious freedom at a place of worship.
Lemon said nothing to reporters on his way in. On his way out, he had plenty to say:
"This is not just about me, this is about all journalists. I will not be intimidated. I will not back down. I will fight these baseless charges, and I will not be silenced."
His attorney told the judge he intends to fight the case on First Amendment grounds.
According to The Hill, on Jan. 18, an anti-ICE protest took place at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon attended. He has argued he was there as a journalist covering the demonstration — not as a participant.
Attorney General Pam Bondi saw it differently. She posted a video to social media soon after news of Lemon's arrest broke, calling the incident a "coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota."
The charges fall under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which provides protections for people in places of worship. A second independent journalist was also arrested in connection with her coverage of the same protest.
Lemon left CNN in 2023 and launched his own media company and online show, which he uses to comment on politics and report from major news events. He has been frequently critical of Trump and his allies throughout his career. None of that is a crime. The question the court will have to answer is narrower: what did Lemon actually do at Cities Church on January 18?
The "I was just covering it" defense is familiar. It works when it's true. Journalists cover protests all the time without facing federal charges. The DOJ doesn't typically expend resources charging reporters for standing on a sidewalk with a microphone. The fact that charges were brought under a statute protecting religious worship suggests the government believes Lemon's involvement went beyond observation.
That's an allegation, not a conviction. The trial will sort out the facts. But Lemon's framing of this as a press freedom case requires accepting his premise that he was functioning purely as a journalist at the scene. The Attorney General's characterization — a "coordinated attack" on a church — tells a different story entirely.
The protest didn't materialize out of nowhere. It came amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which followed a pair of people killed by immigration enforcement authorities in the state. The administration announced this week it was scaling back the operation after criticism from local leaders.
The pattern in these situations is predictable. Federal enforcement actions provoke protests. Protests escalate. And when the government holds participants accountable, the narrative flips — suddenly the story isn't about what happened at the church, it's about the First Amendment. A number of press freedom groups have already come to Lemon's defense.
But press credentials aren't a force field. The First Amendment protects journalism. It doesn't immunize everyone holding a phone camera from laws that apply to everyone else. If Lemon was reporting, the charges won't stick. If he was participating in what Bondi described as a coordinated attack on a house of worship, the journalism label doesn't save him.
Lemon's attorney has telegraphed the defense: First Amendment, full stop. That makes this case a collision between press freedom claims and religious liberty protections — two rights that the American legal system takes seriously, and that rarely end up on opposite sides of a courtroom.
For Lemon, the stakes extend beyond the legal. He's built his post-CNN brand on being a voice of resistance. A conviction would be devastating. An acquittal would be fuel. Either way, he's no longer commenting on the news from a studio. He's standing in a courtroom as a defendant, asking a judge to believe he was only there to watch.
The church congregation didn't get to just watch. They were the ones whose worship was disrupted. Their rights are the ones protected by the statute under which Lemon is charged. In the rush to make this a story about journalism, it's worth remembering whose freedom was allegedly violated first.