A federal appeals court has turned down the Justice Department’s attempt to expand charges against individuals linked to a disruptive protest at a Minnesota church, marking a notable legal hurdle for the administration.
On Jan. 25, 2026, the eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a bid to charge five additional people accused of interrupting a church service in Minnesota on Jan. 18, as revealed in court documents made public on Saturday. A federal magistrate judge had previously declined arrest warrants for these five, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, citing insufficient evidence. The ruling represents a setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute demonstrators who disrupted the service over a pastor’s alleged ties to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), though charges against three alleged leaders remain.
Supporters of the administration argue that protecting religious spaces from disruption is a fundamental duty. The Justice Department had sought intervention from both a chief trial judge and later the appeals court to approve warrants for the five additional defendants. Their concern centered on the potential for further interruptions of worship services, as The Guardian reports.
However, the magistrate judge approved charges only against three individuals—Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—for conspiracy against rights, alleging they intimidated and harassed parishioners. A proposed charge of physically obstructing a house of worship was struck down. These defendants have claimed the administration’s actions are retaliatory.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz commented on the Justice Department’s request, calling it “unheard of” in his jurisdiction and across the eighth circuit. His assessment underscores the unusual nature of the government’s approach. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to inquiries.
Yet, when the sanctity of religious gatherings is breached, the government must act decisively within legal bounds. While all three appeals judges agreed not to intervene, one noted that sufficient evidence might exist for charges but pointed to other legal pathways. The Justice Department retains options like approaching a grand jury or submitting more evidence.
Don Lemon, among the five proposed defendants for his journalistic coverage of the event, expressed readiness for continued pursuit by the administration. “They just don’t give up because they want to save face,” he stated. “If there’s no law to fit, they will try to retrofit something or go around a judge and just do it themselves.”
Such defiance raises questions about accountability for actions that disrupt sacred spaces. Lemon’s insinuation of administrative overreach ignores the need to deter future violations of worshippers’ rights. Protecting Christian services, as officials under President Donald Trump have vowed, remains a priority amid Minnesota’s immigration enforcement tensions.
The case has garnered significant notice as the administration intensifies an immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Demonstrators targeted the church due to the pastor’s apparent connection to ICE, reflecting broader friction over federal policies. This legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of heightened policy debates.
One appeals judge described the Justice Department’s request as unprecedented, aligning with Chief Judge Schiltz’s view on its rarity. This judicial consensus signals caution against overstepping prosecutorial norms. Still, the underlying issue of safeguarding religious freedom persists.
Administration advocates maintain that while legal setbacks are frustrating, the principle of defending houses of worship justifies persistent effort. The risk of similar disruptions, as cited by prosecutors, cannot be dismissed lightly. Progressive agendas should not eclipse the right to undisturbed prayer.
The three charged defendants’ accusations of retaliation highlight a narrative often pushed by critics of federal authority. Yet, their alleged actions—intimidating parishioners—demand accountability, not excuses rooted in political disagreement. The administration’s focus on law and order must navigate these legal constraints carefully.
This ruling does not end the matter, as alternative avenues remain open for the Justice Department. Whether through a grand jury or additional evidence, the pursuit of justice for disrupted worshippers can continue. President Trump’s commitment to protecting religious spaces deserves measured, lawful support.
Ultimately, while empathy for free expression exists, disrupting sacred services crosses a critical line. The balance between protest rights and religious liberty must tilt toward safeguarding the latter in a civilized society. This case underscores the need for clear boundaries in contentious times.
