Federal agents arrested former network anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles on Jan. 29 after prosecutors alleged he played a role in a January 18 protest that disrupted a worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Authorities have returned indictments charging him with conspiracy and violations of federal statutes aimed at protecting religious worship, a dramatic escalation that has thrust media practices into the crosshairs of criminal law.
The Justice Department framed the move as enforcement of laws meant to safeguard congregations, citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances statute and other civil-rights provisions. Prosecutors say the group’s actions inside the church amounted to coordinated interference with worship, charges that carry serious legal exposure if proven in court.
Conservative observers should welcome the clear message that houses of worship are to be respected and protected from disruptions, no matter who is involved. The pastor in question is connected to federal immigration work, and the dispute escalated into a scene where churchgoers felt threatened — a reality that the law rightly does not ignore.
On the other hand, the left has rushed to label Lemon’s arrest an assault on the First Amendment, casting coverage and presence at a protest as indistinguishable from activism and thus sacrosanct. Lemon and his lawyers insist he was acting as a journalist documenting events, but journalists who embed with or cheer on disruptive operations must accept that their conduct will be scrutinized rather than given automatic immunity.
It’s also notable that a magistrate judge previously refused to authorize an arrest warrant for Lemon, a wrinkle the Biden-appointed critics of this administration would point to as evidence of overreach. Whatever one’s view of that ruling, the Justice Department’s persistence underscores how seriously it is treating disruptions at places of worship — a posture conservatives can defend when it comes to protecting religious liberty.
This case is as much about accountability as it is about journalism: public figures who cross the line from observing to coordinating protest tactics cannot expect the same protections as neutral reporters. For years the media has wielded access and narrative control; if members of that media engage in operations that impede others’ rights, the law must apply evenly, without political bias.
As the case moves forward, conservatives should press for a fair legal process while insisting that religious freedom remains off-limits to raw political stunts. The remedy to media bad behavior is not to kneecap prosecutors or to excuse trespass under the guise of coverage, but to demand clarity and consistency so that both press freedom and the right to worship are protected under the same rules.
